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)
Mosher, you need to move on. The question is now how to mitigate IPCC. Power is not interested i how loud you can protest about review agreements.
Now the question is how to best mitigate the IPCC-spawned damage
I am anxiously awaiting debate on the affects of ENSO in this report. The Sun provides a bit more in the way of trends (but not that it counts), so many hang their hat on its hot surface. CO2 provides a bit more in the way of trends (but not that it counts), so many hang their tiny little hats on CO2’s tiny and extremely sparsely scattered molecules. But at least its a trend one can look ahead with.
ENSO’s teleconnections with semipermanent large and random small atmospheric pressure systems (and the resultant cloud effects) is a random walk. Can’t be predicted and the swings one way or the other can’t be mathematically canceled out. To admit this in any context within an IPCC report is the real game changer folks.
It looks as though the U. of Colorado’s redefinition of sea level has come to their rescue. (It claims that what it has done is in accord with how other sea level labs do. I wish someone would write a thread in which this claim is examined. I’m dubious.)
Carter:
Your post at December 16, 2012 at 7:04 am displays the complete lack of logical ability typical of a warmunist. It says
For the sake of argument, let us assume that the recent reduction to Arctic ice is evidence of AGW
(it is not such evidence but I am conceding that it is as a method to demonstrate your failure to think).
In that case then the growth of Antarctic ice is evidence that AGW is NOT happening.
So, using your reasoning,
those two pieces of evidence cancel each other.
Result: you provide no evidence of AGW.
Richard
For clarity, I suggest that in the future you say “sea ice.” Warmists claim the land ice has been declining. (I’m on the fence about that one.)
Lots of interesting finds to be had in AR5 – I just came across this in the introduction:
“there is no evidence for global-scale tipping points in any of the most comprehensive models evaluated to date.”
(section 1.2.2)
The link between cosmic ray change and climate can be readily seen:
http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif
and
http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
(click to enlarge)
The main narrative and strategy of the CAGW movement remains to deny that cosmic rays variation has any effect, which is a technique to be expected at least until cooling a number of years from now becomes too much to cover up in additional temperature dataset fudging. However, with the number of individual writers involved, not all are consistent in propaganda strategies, and/or the sentence may be left in (since few read more than the hyperpolitical Summary for Policymakers) as a butt-covering tactic, to be taken out of context in future decades to pretend they weren’t vehemently trying to prevent spread of knowledge about the GCR-climate link.
Regarding this:
“high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23”
What is mostly a very good article is marred by repeating again the CAGW-movement dishonesty of the “roughly constant” falsehood. After major rise during the first half of the 20th century (and overall since the Little Ice Age), there was a dip in solar activity by cycle 20, and concurrently there was the global cooling scare. The 1960s did not equal the 1950s in solar activity or temperatures, which were not “roughly constant” from 1950. (See prior plot links above). The global cooling scare then through part of the 1970s existed for a reason, as temperature decline then was substantial as seen in the articles, graphs, and data of the time like http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l and http://tinyurl.com/cff4qm5 before later revisionism fudged temperature data to hide the inconvenient decline. Next there was very high solar activity (high deflection of GCRs and reduced cloud cover) in cycles 21-22 from 1976 to 1996, the global warming scare. After cycle 22 ended in the late 1990s, average global temperatures peaked in the late 1990s with the El Nino then, and, relative to such, have been flat to declining through now when looked at through satellite temperature data which is not heavily skewed/fudged ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend ).
Also worth noting what is said about an Arctic tipping point immediately following:
“There are arguments for the existence of regional tipping points, most notably in the Arctic(e.g., Duarte et al., 2012; Lenton et al., 2008; Wadhams, 2012 ),though aspects of this are contested (Armour et al., 2011; Tietsche et al., 2011).”
(also section 1.2.2)
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.”
==============================================================
If only they’d said this before Hansen’s circus act before Congress and Al Gore’s “Inconvienent Truth”!
People, this headline claiming “game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing” seems to me to be the epitome of disingenous cherry picking of data. Its as if its been decided to just pretend not to notice what other parts of this draft say. For example, the draft summary states:
“There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”
Can’t a better job be done than this? Is it any wonder that the skeptical crowd is so disparaged within the general science community? I find this so embarrassing.
(I won’t be able to continue commenting on this post. It’s taking about a second per character for my computer to display what I type.)
REPLY: That is likely an issue with your computer and/or browser. Probably not enough RAM. RAM is cheap these days, upgrade if you can for an overall better experience and less disk swapping – Anthony
Mark:
Your concern troll post at December 16, 2012 at 11:05 am says in entirety
Your untrue post is a waste of space which asserts untruths from behind the cowardly shield of anonymity. Indeed, your post is the only embarrassing thing.
The “general science community” does not “disparage” anybody. Indeed, that would be a denial of science which considers information and not who or where the information originates.
The pseudoscientists who practice so-called ‘climate science” – and their minions – smear anybody and everybody who points out their egregious behaviour.
The IPCC Reports are political documents and not impartial scientific reports.
The entire draft AR5 was leaked and the leaker quoted verbatim some parts from it which he considered to be important. The quotations cannot be “disingenuous” if they are verbatim and cannot be “cherry picked” if their complete context is revealed by simultaneous provision of the entire document.
Richard
Mark
I am so glad that you quoted that particular piece of tripe from the AR5 draft, for the opportunity to expose the sort of science that feeds the propaganda mills. From your post:
“There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget.”
What does this say? It says that the globe has warmed the last fifteen years, the temperature record be damned. You may swallow something like this, but we are not so easily fooled.
As far as the “general science community” is concerned, that’s us. You quote from would-be scientists who cannot accommodate their faith-based science to real-world observations.
Will the IPCC eventually proclaim “The Sun roasted my homework”?
Richard,
I understand what you say about what was presented by the leaker. However, the issue I raised was specifically in regard to the *headline* accompanying this story, and I believe my concern is valid.
If ALL parts of the draft report that address “enhanced solar forcing” are considered, one cannot with any honesty conclude that the IPCC admission is “game changing”. Drawing such a conclusion based on only one piece of the evidence presented, while conveniently ignoring other pieces, is the very definition of disingenous cherry picking.
I will say again: no one who presents information in a disingenous fashion, as I believe this headline is most certainly doing, should expect to be taken seriously within the general scientific community.
FAO richardscourtney
Well you’ll agree that the world’s climate is getting warmer! How so? Because the heat vents to space have been blocked by co2 at the exact IR wavelengths. As has been recorded by satelites!
Mark:
In am copying all of your post at December 16, 2012 at 1:01 pm so others can easily assess if my response is appropriate. Your post says
Rubbish!
The headline was an opinion which you may not share, but your post (at December 16, 2012 at 11:05 am) used it as an excuse for propagandist falsehoods. That post was a warmunist rant containing a series of untrue accusations, misrepresentations and smears which I deconstructed in my reply at December 16, 2012 at 11:39 am.
And you have the gall to use the word “disingenuous” in your response to that deconstruction!
The depths to which warmunists will stoop never ceases to amaze me.
Richard
@ur momisugly Mark ,Taken seriously within the general scientific community, This would be the same community whose silence on the CRU emails, Wegman report and IPCC corruption continues?
>> Carter says:
December 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm
FAO richardscourtney
Well you’ll agree that the world’s climate is getting warmer! <<
That would be highly unlikely because it isn't.
Not according to Dave Britton of the Met Office anyway, born out by the latest leak from AR5.
catweazle666,
Carter is always posting his pseudo-scientific propaganda videos. But like the one above, they are all deconstructed by empirical evidence. Or more accurately, by the complete lack of empirical evidence showing that water vapor has the claimed effect.
Sixteen years of steadily rising CO2 has had absolutely no effect on the global temperature. That is because the CO2 effect is saturated. Adding more CO2 makes no difference. That window has been painted over so many times that the atmospheric CO2 concentration could be doubled without any resulting warming due to CO2.
catweazle666:
Thankyou for your post at December 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm which answers the falsehood from Carter.
Although Carter’s post was addressed to me, I missed it.
As you say, there has been no global warming discernible at 95% confidence for 16 years.
Richard
After seeing the latest chart of “UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere” posted for November by Dr Roy Spencer at drroyspencer.com, I can’t understand why the AGW scam promoted by Al Gore and his acolytes at the University of East Anglia can continue to poison the facts about global warming (if any). The satellites in polar orbit measure real global temperature over the entire globe, unaffected by steadily expanding urban heat islands, poorly sited land-based sensors, etc.
Satellite measurements began in 1979, The November chart shows an increase of only 0.28 deg .C, down slightly from the October temperature, but I am unsure of the baseline at 1979. My own eyeball view of the chart would have a temperature of perhaps minus 0.1 degree C from 1979 until about 1997, before the big El Nino spike that occurred in 1998.
But after that spike, the global temperature seems to have settled on a new fixed value of around plus 0.2 deg. C since 2002 with essentially no increase since 2002, and maybe even earlier. I conclude that for the past 33 years there has been an increase of no more than 0,3 deg C, which would represent a “global warming” trend of around 0.9 C per century, due to unknown factors related to the Sun, and surly nothing to warrant a huge economic disruption caused by a fanatical U.S. war on carbon aimed at driving up the cost of conventional fuels aimed at unnecessarily reducing their consumption.
Boehm –
The planet Venus has a runaway CO2 greenhouse gas effect so intense that lead melts on its surface. Please, tell us again why additional CO2 “makes no difference”.
Well, Mark, this post is obviously being taken seriously “in the general scientific community” for why else would you feel motivated to post here? or perhaps you do not feel qualified to be a member of the same.
Well, the rest of us do, and we take seriously this post, however much you may quibble with the headlines. I’ll wager that you do not raise the same quibbles with such publications as the Daily Beast, or the Guardian, or BBC, or etc.
Reblogged this on TrueNorthist and commented:
Lots of updates being added regularly, so check back often for the latest.