This post will remain at the top for a few days, new stories will appear below this one
UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin at the NYT weighs in, and semi endorses the leak, see update below – Anthony
UPDATE2: Alternate links have been sent to me, should go faster now. – Anthony
UPDATE3: The main site is down but a large “all in one” RAR file (and bittorrent) has been created by a readers, see below. – Anthony
UPDATE4: 7:30AM PST 12/14/12 reactions are now coming in worldwide, see here, and the IPCC is going to issue a statement today. – Anthony
UPDATE5: 8:30AM PST 12/14/12 The IPCC has issued a statement on the leak, see below. -Anthony
UPDATE6: 12PM PST 12/14/12 The real bombshell of the report is now evident, a lack of warming to match model projections, see it here
UPDATE7: 12:30PM PST 12/14/12 Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Analysis of UN IPCC Draft report : IPCC ‘shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods’
UPDATE8: 5PM PST 12/14/12 Another IPCC reviewer speaks out, this time about water vapor trends – actual data and IPCC contradict each other.
UPDATE9: 2PM PST 12/16/12 A rebuttal to Steven Sherwood and the solar forcing pundits of the IPCC AR5 draft leak
Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing
(Alec Rawls) I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below. Here are the chapters:
From http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/
(which is down now, see updated links below in update #2)
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Why leak the draft report?
By Alec Rawls (email) [writing at http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ ]
General principles
The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.
That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:
… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.
So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5’s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.
The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.
As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.
Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.
Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC
Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.
The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):
There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.
The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”
This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.
The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.
The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.
My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.
The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.
Will some press organization please host the leaked report?
Most of us have to worry about staying within cautiously written and cautiously applied terms-of-service agreements. That’s why I created this new website. If it gets taken down nothing else gets taken with it. Media companies don’t have this problem. They have their own servers and publishing things like the draft IPCC report is supposed to be their bailiwick.
If the press has First Amendment protection for the publication of leaked materials even when substantial national security interests are at stake (the Supreme Court precedent set in the Pentagon Papers case), then it can certainly republish a leaked draft of a climate science report where there is no public interest in secrecy. The leaker could be at risk (the case against Pentagon leaker Daniel Ellsberg was thrown out for government misconduct, not because his activity was found to be protected) but the press is safe, and their services would be appreciated.
United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert “the end is nigh” Gore when he served as President Clinton’s “climate czar.” That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).
Acolytes of this bought “consensus” want to see what new propaganda their tax dollars have wrought and so do the skeptics. It’s unanimous, and an already twice-vetted draft is sitting now in thousands of government offices around the world. Time to fork it over to the people.
=============================================================
UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin writes in a story at the NYT Dot Earth today:
It’s important, before anyone attacks Rawls for posting the drafts (this is distinct from his views on their contents), to consider that panel report drafts at various stages of preparation have been leaked in the past by people with entirely different points of view.
That was the case in 2000, when I was leaked a final draft of the summary for policy makers of the second science report from the panel ahead of that year’s round of climate treaty negotiations. As I explained in the resulting news story, “A copy of the summary was obtained by The New York Times from someone who was eager to have the findings disseminated before the meetings in The Hague.”
Here’s a question I sent tonight to a variety of analysts of the panel’s workings over the years:
The leaker, Alec Rawls, clearly has a spin. But I’ve long thought that I.P.C.C. was in a weird losing game in trying to boost credibility through more semi-open review while trying to maintain confidentiality at same time. I’m sympathetic to the idea of having more of the I.P.C.C. process being fully open (a layered Public Library of Science-style approach to review can preserve the sanity of authors) in this age of enforced transparency (WikiLeaks being the most famous example).
I’ll post answers as they come in.
Full story at DotEarth
==============================================================
UPDATE2: Alternative links for AR5 WG1 SOD. At each page click on the button that says “create download link,” then “click here to download”:
Summary for Policymakers
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425211/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 1: Introduction
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425214/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436270/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436276/Ch3_Obs-oceans_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch03_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436279/Ch4_obs-cryo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch04_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436282/Ch5_Paleo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch05_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436285/Ch6_Carbonbio_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch06_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436286/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425217/Ch8_Radiative-forcing_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 8 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436312/Ch8_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_SM_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436298/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436302/Ch10_attribution_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch10_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436303/Ch11_near-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch11_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425220/Ch12_long-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch12_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425221/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425222/Ch14_future-regional_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_All_Final.pdf.html
Chapter 14 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436309/Ch14_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_SM_Final.pdf.html
Technical Summary
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425223/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf.html
======================================================
UPDATE3: a large “all in one” RAR file has been created by a reader “hippo”
Link to the entire set of documents, as single RAR archive:
http://www.filedropper.com/wwwstopgreensuicidecom
And now a bittorrent magnet link:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80
reader “krischel” writes:
It’s a folder with each individual PDF in it.
If you have a torrent client like Transmission, you should be able to copy/paste open up that magnet URL and start downloading.
Replaced Link with the newer one. -ModE
==================================================
UPDATE4: 7:30AM PST 12/14/12 reactions are now coming in worldwide, see here, and the IPCC is going to issue a statement today.
UPDATE5: IPCC statement here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/Statement_WGI_AR5_SOD.pdf
Full text here in this WUWT post (easier reading)
The ABC Australia has mentioned the leak.
“The leaker and other climate sceptics have isolated one section of the draft to suggest that cosmic rays such as those of the Sun may have a greater influence on warming than had been claimed.
Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, was the lead author of the chapter in question.
He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.
“I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.
“What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything.
“The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.”
Professor Sherwood says research has effectively disproved the idea that sunspots are more responsible for global warming than human activity.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/ipcc-draft-climate-report-leaked/4429036
Deck chairs [chapters] being re-arranged … yet again … what will the conclusion be this time [?].
Looks like a berg clipped the starboard. Pity.
Per Captain’s commands: “Deny anyone life preservers and Lock the Gates at Steerage: Shoot them if they protest. Kill them All With Glee On My Order,” the Generalissimo Exaltis Devine Rajendra Pachauri savior betrayer of Homo Sapiens his devoted lovely enemy.
XD
The online version of the New Scientist, that purportedly scientific UK publication which on the subject of climate change adheres to complete political correctness, has published a reaction to this leak by the extremist co2 fanatic Michael Marshall who’s works full-time for New Scientist as their environment reporter.
One wonders if he will still have his job with the soon to be discredited publication once temperatures enter a long term decline. It amazes me how people can cling to and ascribe totality to an impossibly simplistic belief. I guess such behaviour must be a fundamental part of the human psyche, many people take the easy option and choose black and white viewpoints rather than struggle with attempting to understand reality which is invariably more complicated.
In the same article we also have this;
But of course being an Australian university professor he has no hope of keeping his job unless he toes the party political line, doing so will suffocate any individuality or innovative research and so he will consequently never make a new discovery or publish a paper which stands the test of time.
Once temperatures enter a long term decline as seems inevitable, I imagine that he might tone down some of his “denier denialist” rhetoric.
G.
You said
A shallow assumption. If the World warms, vast areas of land in the Northern Hemisphere, currently too cold to farm effectively will become available and other areas will improve in productivity. We will likely gain more than we lose.
Methane and co2 levels have been many times higher in the past and even if the entirety of the Worlds know fossil fuel reserves where released into the atmosphere we still would not get back to those levels. Runaway global warming did not take place then, it cannot take place today.
You talk of resource conflicts and some of humanity hopefully left to rebuild. In a warming world this is a nonsense scenario, history shows us that previous warm periods were warmer than today and civilisations flourished during those times and suffered during colder times. It is severe cooling which poses the greater threat to mankind.
Since you use the phrase ‘”runaway warming” let us also consider the effects of “runaway cooling”, that is a glaciation, and would make much of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable. So about one billion well armed inhabitants of Russia, Europe, Canada, the US, would need to abandon their countries and move South. Clearly runaway cooling is the scenario which would cause the most resource conflicts and food shortages.
Alex Rawls seems to have missed this vital bit on the next page of the report in section 7.4.5.3:
So his statement about climate scientists contradicting themselves is completely bogus.
The lesson here is to read the context (which only requires scrolling to the next page) and to take cherry-picked sentences with a pinch of salt.
I rest my case.
The IPCC may express some doubt about CCNs being responsible but in parallel with that they clearly now accept the evidence of a solar amplification of some sort.
The best candidate in my opinion is variations in the mix of wavelengths and particles which change far more than raw TSI.
I have explained elsewhere how that would work.
Alec Rawls is correct as to the proper interpretation of the IPCC draft paper.
The acceptance of solar amplification is clearly not dependent on CCNs being the cause.
I agree with the IPCC as regards CCNs.
Far more likely is cloud changes as a result of jet stream shifts between zonal and meridional modes.
The latter results in far longer lines of air mass mixing with more clouds at those lengthened air mass boundaries.
This is one of many examples of evidence for the solar / climate link.
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bond-et-al-2001.gif
This correlation speaks for itself. There is no data of comparable quality in climate science. Virtually impossible that this correlation is accidental.
That the IPCC admits an amplified solar link but then dismisses the whole influence just because they doubt a proposed mechanism is disturbing. But the data is still there and tells more than 1000 pages of the new report. Data above and multiple similar records prove that the sun has been the major climate driver in the past, and that temperatures have been significantly higher than today and fast increases and decreases have happened multiple times during the last 12000 years. Disturbingly, the data tells us as well, what will happen with temperatures and agriculture, if the sun falls into another Maunder Minimum with the next solar cycle, as it did during the little ice age.
Thomas Edwards:
You end your post at December 15, 2012 at 3:38 am saying,
“I rest my case.”
The jury is still out, and I am not on it. But if I were it then your case would lose.
Richard
Thomas Edwards says:
December 15, 2012 at 3:38 am
—————————————————
He already answered this directly in several comments.
Your case was already lost.
True CAGW skeptic here, so I hope I don’t get all climbed over for this post, but It seems to me we’re overreaching again, and getting called out for it, again, which I don’t know if that does us any good. I do like it that Anthony posts these breaking news items, but I think that the rhetoric about game-changing and bombshells could wait until we all had time to absorb the details. As for four of the revelations, it appears that Rawls is excited about a contradiction in the reports that may or may not exist, and the obscurity will be worked out so that it’s probably not a game changer. And the bombshell about the IPCC models over-predicting actual warmth: Is that really new? I thought that we knew that. Maybe not.
On the other two, the lack of evidence for AGW-caused extreme weather, and the lack of correlation of warmth and humidity, those do seem like important admissions, and it’s great that IPCC, or at least the perhaps “naive” first drafters, include these.
Roger Knights says:
December 14, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Superb analysis. It deserves a post in it’s own right.
Skeptics know the ‘Funded by Oil’ is an absolute crock and deserve derisive laughter but this shows it is an absolute crock.
My hats off to you.
SamG says:
December 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm
“United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars”
What Bernanke conjures up in a month to avoid the recession.
____________________________________
And gives us STAGFLATION instead.
Is the U.S. Stagflation Nightmare on its Way Back?
Stagflation is back, ready or not
The Fiscal Cliff: Stagflation Vs. Deflation
Shadow Statistics: Real US Unemployment is ~23% and stable
Shadow Statistics: Real Inflation
HYPERINFLATION 2012 – Shadow Government Statistic
His primers should be mandatory reading for every high school student and adult. His website a useful addition to anyone who wants to know what is really going on in the US economy since as we all know politicians and bureaucrats LIE.
Counterspin in high gear…
Belief in global warming rising, even among doubters: AP poll
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/belief-in-global-warming-rising-even-among-doubters-ap-poll-1.1079773
As usual, the author thoughtlessly assumes warming can’t occur naturally and unethically mischaracterizes nature appreciators.
Alarmists: Understand what the real issue is: We should show appreciation & respect for the power & beauty of nature. Instead of ignoring her, let’s get to know nature. We know you assume she’s hideously disfigured, but I assure you she’s stunningly beautiful if you will only put aside your models and look at reality a LOT more carefully. It has become absolutely crystal clear that you do NOT understand what the issue is.
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
Multidecadal Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave Deceleration:
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/2v2ywzb.png
http://i40.tinypic.com/16a368w.png
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1275t4383874p65/MediaObjects/382_2011_1071_Fig4_HTML.gif
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
Interpretation:
Equator-pole heat & water pump doppler effect.
Via Laws of:
a) conservation of angular momentum.
b) large numbers.
Data:
ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now
I dare Jasper Kirkby & Henrick Svensmark in particular to LOOK CAREFULLY. If they actually know how to derive aggregate constraints on terrestrial circulatory morphology, they will realize these observations are bulletproof.
I advise care. Those who fail to acknowledge such well-constrained observations can be classified ONLY as dark agents of ignorance &/or deception.
Alarmists:
Stop misframing the issue.
Show appreciation & respect for the power & beauty of nature.
That’s what’s being asked of you.
dabbio says:
December 15, 2012 at 6:16 am
True CAGW skeptic here, so I hope I don’t get all climbed over for this post….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From what I can see if you have N skeptics in the room you have N+1 views along with a lot of presentation of observations and theories. This is good and as it should be.
With Warmists you normal have everyone singing from the same hymnal. The fact there has been even a slight break in the ranks is the real GOOD NEWS.
lf you want to know what’s a big driver in changes in cloud cover.!
Well if you take a look at the Fulldisk satellite image of the eastern Pacific, then the answer will be right in front of your eyes.
As it shows clearly how a increase in the amount the jet stream oscillates can lead to a increase in cloud cover. Because its along the jet stream where much of the cloud cover forms. So as the jet stream fluctuates more, so it leads to a increase in cloud cover.
This correlation speaks for itself. There is no data of comparable quality in climate science. Virtually impossible that this correlation is accidental.
Wow. I love the skeptical “mind”
[snip – g2-91a96892c9b157ef8c7ff35a46563741 is not a valid name – mod]
But has anyone checked if its the CG3 password 🙂 ?
Thanks. I think that what I have to contribute here are persuasive/marketing-type suggestions of this sort. I am discouraged that Anthony hasn’t risen to the bait on a few of my similar suggestions in the past. The following, for instance, I think is a clever way of making the point about the incentives to play along with alarmism. The headline is very sly. I submitted it as a story but it wasn’t accepted. (I think the value of making threads of stuff like this is that the feedback would greatly improve them.)
============
If Global Warming Didn’t Exist, It Would Be Necessary to Invent It:
… To lift climatology out of its backwater status …
… To increase research funding for Academia …
… To justify the de facto political empowerment of a sector of the scientific / academic elite, setting a precedent for the subsequent empowerment of other sectors of that elite.*
… To refresh the raison d’être of the EPA & UN …
… To move environmentalism from the fringes to the center of social concern …
… To justify increased media coverage of environmental issues …
… To give enviro-groups a powerful fund-raising and consciousness-raising tool …
… and allow them access to the levers of national and international power …
… To give activist & green parties a vote-getting wedge issue …
… and a case-study justification for their habitual “hammer” (increased regulation and taxation) …
… To provide at-a-loss “engagé/enragé” types with a new stick with which to bash the beastly bourgeoise…
… To transfer wealth from the West to the South …
… To fund alternative energy developers and researchers …
(* See Pareto on “the circulation of the elites.”)
So why not “warm” to global warming, if you’re:
… a climatologist?
… a university administrator?
… an environmentalist?
… an environmental reporter?
… an official of an environmental organization?
… a worker or investor in an alternative energy company?
… a UN official?
… a socialist?
… a natural-born “true believer”?
… a country in the global South?
… a bigshot in a boffins’ brigade?
For such as those, what’s not to like about “climatism”? It’s all upside—a gravy train that’s glory-bound. It would be tempting to get aboard, wouldn’t it? (Especially after others did so, threatening to leave you on The Wrong Side.)
richardscourtney says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:10 am
wow, thank you, I admire your patience to make a throughout clarification!
E.M.Smith says:
December 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm
@richardscourtney:
I, in fact, use that “reflection of self” in figuring out what the other side thinks and does. It’s remarkably effective. So, for example, Tzo talks about the “overlords”. Lets see, which side has overlords? The “self organizing system of individuals” of the rabble (said endearingly) of the skeptics? Or the UN / EU / IPCC / NSF driven top down central authority based AGW crowd? Hmmmm?
So just listen to their rants, then use two tools:
1) Reflective assessment. What do they accuse the other of doing? that is likely what THEY do or what they are experiencing. It is the social norm they have internalized.
2) Negative Space evaluation: What is not said. That is where they have fear. (Oddly, what is denied most loudly is often also a fear point, so there is a ‘barbell’ to the negative space to also look for). Take, for example, the way The Sun gets “disappeared” from the reports… and nearly no mention of long cycle historical events (Bond, D.O., LIA / MWP / Roman Optimum,…)
….
Thanks E.M. Great analysis!
Gail Combs says:
December 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm
…
Gail, thank you for the overview!
I think Anthony could take several comments from this thread and post those as individual blog posts….
Umm…You DO realize that the actual draft says the exact opposite of what you claim? Is your desperation so deep that you’ll lie without a second thought? http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/desperate-for-doubt.html
This sounds great until Leif Svaalgard shows up and shreds everything. I predict he’ll not agree to any of this (unless I missed something over the past 8 years!) and look forward to his most expert opinion.
taxed said:
“increase in the amount the jet stream oscillates can lead to a increase in cloud cover. Because its along the jet stream where much of the cloud cover forms. So as the jet stream fluctuates more, so it leads to a increase in cloud cover.”
At last, someone has actually taken a look.
I’ve been saying that for ages.
Alyssa:
Your post at December 15, 2012 at 8:25 am asks
It then links to a warmunist blog.
I know it is difficult for a warmunist, but please try to not be silly.
The entire draft AR5 was leaked and the leaker quoted some statements from it verbatim because he thought they were noteworthy.
Providing the entire text ensures that all context is provided and quoting verbatim is not – and cannot be – “the exact opposite of what you claim”.
Also, please refrain from accusing others of lies when it is warmunists – not climate realists – who lie and lie and … in furtherance of their cause.
By the way, what rate were you payed to make your untrue post?
Richard
Everyone wishes to promote the cause and so …
the modellers make aggressive assumptions which predict more rather than less warming
those in charge of the temperature record aggressively adjust for factors that might make the warming look greater, and fudge adjustments that might make it less.
the proxy people look for proxies which show greatest warming.
the hockeystick people carefully select a method which most highly weights the warmest proxies
the effects people look only at the most dire negative effects of warming they can find and choose not to investigate positive effects.
The IPCC lead authors emphasis only the papers which predict greatest warming and direst consequences.
The summary for policy makers puts the most aggressive spin possible on the conclusions of the earlier chapters.
The green media doubles down by putting the direst possible spin on the summary for policy makers, constructs headlines of catastrophe, attacks critics, and generally tries to suppress any hint of dissent with one sided unfair reporting.
So many people all leaning in the same direction on the evidence; each person pushing it just to the limit of what they think they can justify but no further. But the cumulative effect of all those thumbs on the scales is massive. A story of catastrophe has been constructed out of thin air.
(hope the HTML has no errors – wish we could preview)
The stage is set for Leif !!!