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)
As you might expect, the warmist media disagrees with Alex’s interpretation of the AR5 report. From the UK New Scientist:
Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change
Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect,” she says.
In fact, the report summary reaffirms that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are the main reason for rising temperatures. It goes on to detail the many harmful effects, from more frequent heatwaves to rising sea levels.
This is not my reading of the report – but then if your salary depends on CAGW ……
Rawls is somewhat inconsistent in his rationale for breaching his contract
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.
#######################
Do you see it? He argues that they were DISHONEST about The “Omitted” Variable.
And then argues that they were HONEST about the same variable.
In truth he had no basis for breaking his agreement. [snip]
A bit of realism. Does anyone REALLY believe that after all these years the IPCC is going to say they were wrong? I don’t.
Steven Mosher: In truth he had no basis for breaking his agreement. [snip]
The more I think about this episode, the more I think that Alec Rawls did a disservice by leaking the draft, much as I enjoy having it. Nothing revealed so far justifies his breaking of his promise of confidentiality, and his exaggerated (sometimes contradictory, as cited by Steven Mosher) claims about minor details of writing make him look bad. It is reminiscent, in its exaggeration, of the AGW promoters who claim Katrina and Sandy as harbingers of unprecedented warming. And it is reminiscent, in its dishonesty, of James Gleick and of the ClimateGate emails.
Matthew R Marler;
And it is reminiscent, in its dishonesty, of James Gleick and of the ClimateGate emails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
James Gleick had exactly what to do with the ClimateGate emails? Perhaps you’re referring to Peter Gleick? Of course he also had nothing to do with the ClimateGate emails, he was the person who obtained Heritage Foundation documents under false presences and compounded his deceit by also releasing what turned out to be a forged document which some evidence points to as having been written by him. Surely you are not suggesting that Alec Rawls obtained documents under false pretenses and forged other documents?
mr. Mosher, IPCC pay attention,
There is another unexplained forcing from the sun because, 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 this unknown amplifying mechanism.The cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.
THE WORKING GROUP CAN’T EXPLAIN WHAT CAUSES THE AMPLIFYING MECHANISM AND CHOOSES TO IGNORE IT; LYING BY OMISSION.
“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”
Exactly! I’ve been using the same metaphore for years as well – with the addition that the oceans are a very large kettle of water.
I think if you use solar variation in combination with ENSO cycles since 1980 you get a very good picture of the actual temperature trend. That is the temperature trend that is reflected by a fair accounting of UHI and that is not amplified by polar extrapolations.
Mosher: “Do you see it? He argues that they were DISHONEST about The “Omitted” Variable.
And then argues that they were HONEST about the same variable.”
Explicitly lawyering for the warmers now are we, Mosh?
Who really cares? What the IPCC is doing should be open to public scrutiny. It’s the content that counts. Why it was leaked has no bearing on the content. This is not a political election.
Chapter Page 31 you find Table 13.1 and a new category, “Land Water” compared to the old Table 10.7 in the AR4. They say “Land Water” includes liquid water storage and glaciers, but they retain the category “Glaciers” I could be wrong but it looks like they count the effect of glaciers on sea level twice. Discount the “Glaciers” category and they come up short nearly 0.5 mm/yr in matching the reality of the observed Global Mean Sea Level Rise (GMSLR).
Antwerpenaar says:
December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented.
=================================================================
Me: Controlled by whom? The problem with the actual report rather than its spun summary being looked at by those with the where-with-all (and, no, I’m one of them) to scrutinize it before some jouralist writes a headline is ….what?
===================================================================
Antwerp: But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we? ==================================================================
Me: Attempting to appeal to some sort of “Nationlism”? Sure, Europeans matter. They are as much victims of this power grab as the rest of us.
===================================================================
Antwerp: And besides, this Alec Rawls guy has made his name by climbing over the backs of all the other team members, so that’s OK then.
==================================================================
Me: Alec Rawls climbing over other’s backs? If there is any possibilty that your accusation has any bit of truth to it, I’m glad he did. I’d rather someone climbed on my back to reach a higher level than be stabbed in the back by someone who wants to take what I’ve worked for.
PS Where would we be if others had not stood on the shoulders of those who came before them? Sometimes that higher reach has been showing “the shoulders” were wrong. (Or do you still believe there are only 4 elements?)
John Bills says:
December 15, 2012 at 11:20 am
“THE WORKING GROUP CAN’T EXPLAIN WHAT CAUSES THE AMPLIFYING MECHANISM AND CHOOSES TO IGNORE IT; LYING BY OMISSION.”
Sir: This is precisely what has been going on for years.
Matt & moshe, remember, open records are a good.
==================
Wait a minute, you’re taking ONE sentence from a report that concludes the exact opposite of what you claim and you’re calling that “Game-Changing?” You expect to be taken seriously? There will come a time when you can no longer lie your way out of the science that has been spot on for the last 30 years. Simply propaganda on your part.
Gail Combs says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:29 am
……
Comrade Svalgaardovich finally lost his cool
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/circular-logic-not-worth-a-millikelvin/#comment-1174104
I accept that the disclosure of the report cannot perhaps be fully justified under the claimed headline re: solar forcings. However, I for one am immensely pleased that we will be able to compare this SOD with then final published version and the language contortions contained therein!
I just did a quick calculation of their sea level projections and numbers from http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf
“Chapter 3 also assesses the significance of the sea level acceleration since the beginning of the instrumental
6 record reported by a number of studies. Because of the presence of low-frequency oscillations (e.g., 60-year
7 oscillations; Chambers et al., submitted; in some tide gauge records), sea level acceleration results are
8 sensitive to the choice of the analysis time span. Chapter 3 concludes that the rate of sea level rise has
9 increased since the late 19th century and has continued during the 20th century. When a 60-year oscillation
10 is modeled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from:
0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr
–2
11 (90% confidence) in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 [0.007 to
0.019] mm yr
–2
in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr
–2
12 (90% confidence) in
13 the Church and White (2011) record. For comparison, (Church and White, 2011) estimated the acceleration
term to be 0.009 ± 0.003 mm yr
–2
14 over the 1880–2009 time span when the 60-year cycle is not considered.”
Thus they are admitting that there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in one paper, and puny acceleration rates in two others. 0.009mm/yr^2 is just 0.5% acceleration on a rate of 1.74mm/year. By 2100 that is an accumulated rise of 20cm, 5cm more than if there was no acceleration at all. Even their worst case of 3mm/year now, with an acceleration of 0.015mm/yr^2 gives an accumulation of just 33cm.
So officially the IPCC is going to say there may not be acceleration, and if there is the MOST it can be by 2100 is 33cm. Unless the IPCC is going to claim that there will be an acceleration in the acceleration.
Tilo Reber says:
December 15, 2012 at 11:27 am
…….
I do too, but in a somewhat different setting:
Pot of salty water is heated from above by any kind of moderate heat source (sun). Warm water at the top, cool water is lower down. When temperatures reach equilibrium gently agitate by an electromagnet acting with Lorentz force on the saline ions (geomagnetic storms). Some of the accumulated heat will be released into the air above, the equilibrium has been disrupted, cooler surface, followed by more heat absorbing from the source above, and so on, result surface temperature oscillation (the AMO).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Really I went to download from the site in update 2 and all I got was 8 or more toolbars?
Steven Mosher says:
“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””
Wow, quite good correlation over several thousands of years.
That sure beats a pure coincidence of CO2 rise vs temp rise over a 20 year period. !
Of the past 60 or so years, this coincidence only existed for around 20 years.
THERE HAS BEEN NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature over the last many thousands of years. !!!.
And Mosh, you would not know skepticism if it bit you on the butt !!!
Steve says:
December 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm
“Sadly, it’s not final until it’s final. ( or some IPCC hack can no longer rewrite it ).”
It will be very interesting to see what gets “CORRECTED” (lol) in the Final report !! 🙂
Gunga Din says:
December 15, 2012 at 11:48 am
Antwerpenaar says:
December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
=====================================
One more thing.
This whole thing is supposed to be about science, not politics. How is it a bad thing for scientist to have a look at it before the politicians attempt to use it for … politics?
Should we need an FOIA request?
(I’d love to see Glimategate3 come out now!)
Deanne;
There will come a time when you can no longer lie your way out of the science that has been spot on for the last 30 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is the part that has been spot on?
increased hurricane severity => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
increased hurricane frequency => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
increased droughts => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
increased flooding => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
increased temps => they won’t admit it, but their own data says they were wrong
declining arctic ice => check. Q: how do flat temps cause this?
declining antarctic ice => wrong
OK, let’s give them 1/2 mark out of 7 just to be generous. What’s the part they were spot on about?
Steven Mosher says:
December 15, 2012 at 7:45 am
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”
——————
Well, i am just using IPCC report language for expressing (un)certainty. And they do not even have any data correlations of this kind for their case.
First comes ignoration, then criticism, then “it doesn’t matter” and finally they come with something else.
You are still in step 1.
‘The Age’ Newspaper in Melbourne ( a pro warming paper) says on its front page that the leaked report proves beyond doubt that mankind is causing global warming.
I for one am not impressed by the criticisms of those who condemn Rawls for releasing this draft. None of the critics have seen fit to adress the question of whether the IPCC is justified in requiring a secrecy agreement, or whether such secrecy is beneficial on the whole. I agree with those who suggest that the secrecy has much to do with the IPCC’s concern with final editing to achieve “correctitude” and spin-doctoring. I see many benefits of a public discussion of the IPCC’s inner workings. I wonder at those who assume that the IPCC is a decent process controlled by decent persons.