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)
In regards to those climate change proponents, people who believe everyday humans exhaling causes long term detrimental affects to the earth, I say are pathetic in that they don’t let everyday humans decide for themselves if it’s true. Those proponents refuse to understand the concept of attaching themselves to bureaucracy which will tax or make people bend to their will, is appalling.
There will always be arguments as to who is wrong and who is right in the climate change debate. The real truth will ferret out the public’s course of action, not from edicts or laws passed by politicians. When one side attaches themselves to that they are already going down the wrong side of the rabbit hole.
How many times have people been lied to by politicians, that they hold the whole grail in the solution of things? It’s December 2012 in America and why aren’t we seeing the benefits of Nafta, and Gatt, passed in 1994, since they were supposed to be the next best thing since sliced bread? The road to hell is paved by the path of good intentions.
It’s this distrust that should drive the proponents away from this resolve. Look at Einstein’s special theory of relativity, he published it and let it be. He didn’t get politicians involved in making people like or accept it. If the scientist really cared about people, then care about people and leave politics out of the equation.
Roger Knights says:
December 15, 2012 at 7:59 am
…Thanks. I think that what I have to contribute here are persuasive/marketing-type suggestions of this sort….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Flesh it out a bit and write it up as a thread and use
Submit Story: http://wattsupwiththat.com/submit-story/
Anthony does not have the time to read all the comments.
Steven Mosher says:
December 15, 2012 at 10:40 am
Rawls is somewhat inconsistent in his rationale for breaching his contract
Frankly speaking Steven I cannot see any reason for confidentiality. Why should any of the steps of this process be confidential and not open for the public who, by the way, is financing any tiny bit of it? Why not make the process transparent but “transparent”?
It is there where science should be reviewed and discussed, and it can only help for the process to have the debate in the open.
Why the need of secrecy??
Stephen Wilde says:
December 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It makes sense because the clouds form along the frontal lines (high/low pressure) and though the Jets are not exactly the same they are connected to those fronts. Zonal jets are shorter than meridional. link
Of course we are then back to the question of what caused the shift in pattern from zonal to meridonal. I doubt it is the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere especially when we are told it is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Further on a previous post.
Coincidence of trends (especially over a very short period of time) DOES NOT imply Correlation.
and we all know that Correlation does not imply causation.
There is TOTAL DISCONNECT between CO2 rise and temperature rise over the last century or so.
Matthew R Marler says:
December 15, 2012 at 10:57 am
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, Alec Rawls just kept the IPCC’s commitment ….to an open and transparent process that delivers a robust assessment… link
If the process is OPEN and TRANSPARENT then there can not be a “leak” or a “Secrecy Agreement” now can there?
” Gerard says: December 15, 2012 at 1:33 pm
‘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. ”
They really need to login to http://www.khanacademy.org and work through the basic math stuff and maybe pay special attention for the statistics section. How anyone could read that and come to that conclusion is mind boggling!
I have read that the recently withdrawn Gergis, et al. paper is included in the draft. If that is true, what is the significance of such an action. Given all the worldwide derision that this paper received, why would it be included?
http://s.tt/1wUU8
Demsblogg… going off the deep end calling out WUWT and others as being :
“What this leak also shows is the tendency by some to dishonestly engage in an open process and to cherry-pick “facts” about climate change to suit their own arguments, while failing to consider the full body of evidence.”
just wow… wont even discuss it but will tout the meme and calls those who do “dishonest”. sounds to me like some people have an issue with the facts being seen..
The opening paragraph in The Age article is ‘Evidence for climate change has grown stronger and it is now “virtually certain” that human greenhouse gas emissions trap energy that warms the planet, according to a leaked draft of the next major IPCC report’
I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate are more than willing to believe that cosmic rays do. Surely the hurdle for cosmic rays should, if anything, be higher as the science behind how greenhouse gases is well understood but the mechanism (apart from same vague theories about cloud seeding) for GCR is not?
Bill H says:
December 15, 2012 at 3:31 pm
http://s.tt/1wUU8
Demsblogg… going off the deep end ………
===========
At Demsmoglog, under the heading: DESMOG BLOG: Revealing the CLIMATE COVER-UP.
“Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.”
Orwell would be proud of them.
Simon says:
December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate are more than willing to believe that cosmic rays do. Surely the hurdle for cosmic rays should, if anything, be higher as the science behind how greenhouse gases is well understood but the mechanism (apart from same vague theories about cloud seeding) for GCR is not?
===========================================
Interesting that people who do not understand how Cosmic rays influence our weather and cloud cover tout GCR’s as all controlling. Yet a Coupling of CO2 and Water vapor has been shown not to exist. The alarmists thermal blanket is now a wet blanket with huge holes..
To BillH
“Interesting that people who do not understand how Cosmic rays influence our weather and cloud cover tout GCR’s as all controlling. Yet a Coupling of CO2 and Water vapor has been shown not to exist. The alarmists thermal blanket is now a wet blanket with huge holes..”
Interesting that someone that claims that “…Cosmic rays influence our weather…” doesn’t understand that the science of whether or not GCR’s have any impact is actually the thing in question, with only very limited observational support for the idea so far and good reasons for why it is unlikely to be a big factor. Whereas the observational basis of understanding the effect of GH gases is solid and goes back to the late 1960’s.
Interesting that someone claims that “…and Water vapor has been shown not to exist…” doesn’t know about the fact that water vapour levels have been observed to have increased over the last few decades.
Also interesting that they don’t understand that water vapour feedback, no matter what it’s magnitude, applies equally to anything that causes a change in radiative forcing for the planet – more GH gases, Albedo change, any GCR induced changes in clouds. Any warming or cooling effect. Water Vapour feedback will amplify all of them equally.
“Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness”
If they really feel that way, they should tell SkS, and themselves an people to Lewy, Hansen , Mann etc.. to STOP lying their a***s off !!!
jrwakefield said:
“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.”
And indeed they do, it’s right there in the Chapter 13 Executive summary. They say:
“It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all RCP scenarios … with a rate of rise 8–15 mm yr–1 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5.”
That’s an increase of 5 – 12 mm/yr over the next 77 years, and it comes to an acceleration rate of 0.06 – 0.15 mm/yr² which will do nicely. That the current rate of acceleration is a negative -0.06 mm/yr² or so, evidently doesn’t figure into the equation. One has to wonder when this sea change in direction will come. Will it be a Godly enunciation accompanied by herald angels? Well really!
Simon says:
December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate are more than willing to believe that cosmic rays do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The skeptics in general do not dispute that greenhouse gases affect climate, and in fact are better at explaining how this happens than are the warmists in general. The skeptic issue is with the magnitude and sign of direct and feedback effects.
Of course you know that as it has been explained any number of times to you before in response to your made up theories of what other people think. Do you not learn from your mistakes or are you simply content to repeat things you know not to be true because you don’t care about facts in the first place?
this is what the ABC in Australia has to say about this IPPC report http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3655197.htm
Gail Combs says:
December 15, 2012 at 2:31 pm
“Of course we are then back to the question of what caused the shift in pattern from zonal to meridonal. I doubt it is the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere especially when we are told it is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.”
=============================================
Pattern shifts are due to changes in air pressure and magnetism. In other words its the Sun.. Heating and solar wind create the pressure and magnetic changes on a global scale. They affect not only air flows but water flows as well.
The old adage of follow the money seems to apply. The money is heat and pressure waves hitting the earths atmosphere. If you mix oil and water in a balloon and then mush it back and forth the mixing gives certain flows. Change the mush (pressure points) and flows change.. Add normal rotation and the flows change. Warm the solution and the flows change. Change the magnetic angel to the sun and the flows change.
Simply follow the heat….and the pressures applied.. these are external forces yet they cause internal ones to change as well. CO2 is not coupled with water so the theroy of the thermal blanket is all wet. (they do not linearly increase and decrease)
Are not complex systems fun and this is not even scratching the surface of how individual gases react in a centrifuge.
It will be a long time before we understand totally, this place we call home. Just my 2 Cents,
What if GCRs are not the cause of the warming? What if GCRs are just another effect of the real cause? It would explain why GCRs seems to correlate with climate changes over years while no data can be found to demonstrate they are strong enough to cause the changes. We know an active Sun is responsible for changes in the GCRs reaching the Earth. What if something else in an active Sun is the real cause of the warming?
Here’s a chain of events that could be interesting. A solar magnetic reconnection (SMR) occurs. The SMR creates a pulse that effects the Earth’s magnetosphere. This change then reduces clouds on earth for a small period of time leading to temporary warming.
One way this might work is the Jet Streams move poleward temporarily. This reduces the percentage of the Earth covered in clouds. The effect slowly goes away in a few days to a couple of weeks.
It’s also possible some mechanism in cloud formation is sensitive to the magnetic field. That might be the important factor. The main point is to see if reductions in cloud cover correspond to SMRs. I wonder if anyone has ever looked for something like this?
SMRs generally occur in active areas of the Sun and often result in CMEs. I have noticed that upward bumps in the UAH daily temperature data often occur with CMEs. The more active the Sun the more SMRs will occur over any time period. If this is true any time period with high solar activity will see a warming planet as has been noted throughout history.
It would be difficult to tease this signal out of the temperature since the immediate impact is short and small looking more like noise. However, the summation of many of these events would have the effect of keeping the Earth warmer. I would hope the data we have collected over the years might be sufficient to examine this conjecture to see is my observation is more than just anecdotal. I am not qualified but I hope someone out there could be.
If such a correlation could be found there could no longer be any question that the Sun would be responsible for some part of the current warming independent of TSI.
Simon says:
December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate……
=============
I find it curious that warmists who don’t believe that the sun or clouds affect climate…..
Someday warmists will develop more sophisticated arguments to defend their hypothesis. I think I shan’t hold my breath though.
davidmhoffer says:
Rather than giving these vague statements, can someone please provide us with the exact statements that were made on these in AR4 and the exact statements that are made in AR5? That way we can see how much things have really changed?
Yes on the false pretenses. He obtained the report under the pretense that he would be bound by confidentiality and then he came up with some lame self-contradictory excuse for breaking this confidentiality.
Congratulations, some right wing blogger leaked the report. So man made climate change is real. Get over it!
UKSD says:
“So man made climate change is real.”
Thank you for your assertion. But next time, show us verifiable, empirical evidence proving that AGW exists. Good luck with that.
Assertions are nothing more than opinions. So ‘get over it!’
joledshore;
Yes on the false pretenses. He obtained the report under the pretense that he would be bound by confidentiality and then he came up with some lame self-contradictory excuse for breaking this confidentiality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh gimme a break. Gleick got his documents by impersonating someone else. You can argue what you will about how he handled the documents once he had them, but you cannot argue that he impersonated someone else to get them.
I’m not going to index the entire body of AR4 and AR5 for your convenience. Dr Pielke says they have reversed their position on these things. In part, I’m taking his word for it. In part I’m seeing some of the same things as I work my way through Ch11 which is 129 pages of some rather stilted writing. I had to scurry for the dictionary a couple of times to look up words like “verisimilitude” which would have been easier of the dolts had spelled it correctly.
They do say on Ch11 that the models have low skill in predicting tropical cyclone frequency and intensity, then they day they have low confidence that there will be increases. In other words, they ain’t got a clue. On ground level ozone they say they have a high confidence that the base line will change over the 21st century from either slightly less to slightly more, but it won’t be exactly the same. When someone writes a document like that who the h*ll knows what they actually said? It won’t be exactly the same it will be either higher or lower? Wow, that there is predictive skill! I predict that tomorrow it will not be exactly the same temperature as it is now, it will be either higher or lower or perhaps about the same by not exactly the same! See, I’m a climaclownist too!
zootcadillac says:
“I am grateful to Alec for releasing the documents, I feel it was the moral thing to do because despite the IPCC claiming transparency they don’t ever want you to see how they get to where they get to and more importantly what they choose to dismiss in favour of that which supports their pre-disposed position. Every word on those pages is taxpayer funded and everything the IPCC does is in the public interest so we should be able to disseminate their work and freely discuss it despite their insistence that it’s a work in progress. We should be able to contribute to that progress so it becomes an honest evaluation for once.”
Repeated for effect.
We the public paid for this! And this is weather/climate info, not nuclear defense secrets, or the Pentagon Papers. Transparency is required, and to hell with self-serving IPCC’s obligations of secrecy.