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)
Mark,
I told you to get educated by reading the WUWT archives. Just search the keyword: Venus.
But you didn’t do that, did you? No, your mind is made up and closed air tight. You believe in the debunked notion that the temperature of Venus is due to it’s CO2 atmosphere. That is wrong.
Here, I will help you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy
Read the articles and comments. You will find that what you “know” is flat wrong. And if you’re still in doubt, do that keyword search. There are lots of similar articles archived.
D Böehm says:
I told you to get educated by reading the WUWT archives. Just search the keyword: Venus.
I think you’re expecting too much from Mark. He doesn’t need to get educated, he already knows everything he needs to. Best not take the chance that he might learn something that contradicts what he knows.
I see this mindset all the time. Too many people have no interest in doing any research for themselves – it’s easier to just let someone else tell you what to think. Too hard to do it for yourself.
Well, Mark, it seems that the real question is whether you should be taken seriously. Seems like the verdict is that you should not.
You come on as one who has uncritically swallowed the alarmist propaganda. Don’t feel bad, others have before you. Anthony Watts, for one.
The smart ones wise up. You will too, if you ever get tired of feeling foolish.
I guess the PSY-ence is now settled, isn’t it?
Slightly off-topic, but not by much – I just got to see The Dark Knight Rises, and it seems to have an interesting sub-topic running through it. If we were to wrest power away from those abusing it, could we begin to do the right thing, instead of letting the world descend (or ascend?) into anarchy?
I believe that we can and do know what to do.
Today is the first time I have ever posted at this website. Thank you all for the your terribly rude, uncivil, mean-spirited, downright nasty responses.
davidmhoffer,
Sorry that I got the two Gleick’s confused. Neither had anything to do with ClimateGate, and my conjunction “and” was not supposed to imply that either did, merely that I lumpted the episodes together. There is no exact equivalent to breaking a confidentiality agreement.
Mark,
Don’t be such a delicate flower. If you want to see truly rude, nasty, insulting comments, pretend you’re a scientific skeptic and comment at SkS, or Closed Mind, or RealClimate, or Tamino, etc. You will see that the responses to your comments are kissy-face by comparison.
What you are reading here are disagreements with your somewhat wild-eyed statement about a runaway greenhouse effect. We could have a good debate about that, but you don’t want to debate, you simply want to assert. That doesn’t get you very far here. We want verifiable science, not alarmist assertions.
For an excellent deconstruction of the CO2 effect on Venus, see here:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Better to learn scientific truth, rather than believe alarmist propaganda.
Mark says:
December 16, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Today is the first time I have ever posted at this website. Thank you all for the your terribly rude, uncivil, mean-spirited, downright nasty responses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mark, in all sincerity, you are on a science blog. The number of PhD’s in the hard sciences that come here every day would shock most people. If you get the science wrong on this site, someone will rub your nose in it. I speak from experience, I’ve had my nose rubbed in it many times (and I’ve done more than my fair share of rubbing too). But when I get it wrong, I’m wrong, I learn from it, and move on.
In this case, you are wrong. Venus has very high temperatures for a number of reasons, 96% CO2 just isn’t one of the big ones. You’ve been pointed at a variety of articles by well qualified scientists on this matter, all you need do is read them. It wouldn’t hurt you to read up on some basic physics like Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Ideal Gas Law to better understand these. You’ll also want to understand what being “logarithmic” means and how that applies to CO2.
I frequently use Venus’ higher temperatures than Mercury to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. But I also know enough to understand that the greenhouse effect has many aspects to it, and simply claiming that the concentration of CO2 accounts for all the temperature increase (or even most of it) on Venus is beyond misleading, it is just wrong.
So either step up and learn, or slink away steaming mad. Up to you.
Is it this Steven Sherwood ?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html
In 2008 he published this strange effort to prove existence of the troposheric hot spot, though it does not exist. Now this strange effort to deny admittance of a solar amplifier, despite being admitted and referenced in his own chapter.
And mark , incase you are incapable of reading that link..
The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)
The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%.
This multiplier is ALMOST EXACTLY what you would expect from Venus’s closer distance to the Sun.
Having 97% CO2 in Venus’s atmosphere MAKES NO DIFFERENCE !!!.
And since very littel solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus, the surface temp is determined by the pressure at the surface.. some simple maths provide for you.
(coutesy Albert the engineer)
start quote………
You can calculate that by using the state equation for perfect gases, which is good for Venus too, because there you don’t have chemical reactions, and you have just 1 gas (almost 100% CO2, plus trace gases: N, argon, etc.).
Equation is:
PV = nRT
where P is pressure in bars (92)
V is volume in liters (1000)
n is density/number of moles which is 67000/44 (molecular mass of CO2) = 1522.7
R is the universal constant of gases = 0.082
And so, if you introduce magnitudes, you have T = 92 * 1000 = 1522.7/0.082
92000/ 124.8 = 737 K
737° K is 464° C, and so you have EXACTLY the mean temperatures you find everywhere on Venus!
Of course, recorded temperatures, pressures, and gas densities on Venus are not just a fixed one, gases are moving (although very slowly) and ranging from 85/95 bars, 455° C/ 480° C and 62-67 Kg./m^3, but they can fully be explained JUST by huge PRESSURES, huge gas density, and huge atmospheric mass, according to the gas equation.
end quote…….
Don’t sweat it, Gail, I am no fan of the MSM in its current form – far from it – but I know that a change will come and I was expressing the somewhat foolish daydream that they might take this time to hop over to the side of sanity. This whole scam is a massive story and once the break happens, every newspaper and TV channel will wish to have led the way. Even now I feel there must be SOME reporters who are suspicious and/or don’t like to be kept on a leash. I think when the time comes, it will be bloody, the press are not known for their gentleness, especially if they (on the lower rungs – those not actually in the trough but kept under control) feel they have been manipulated. Hopefully we won’t have to wait generations for it it to happen. Cheers! 🙂
D Böehm says:
December 16, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Mark,
Don’t be such a delicate flower. If you want to see truly rude, nasty, insulting comments, pretend you’re a scientific skeptic and comment at SkS, or Closed Mind, or RealClimate, or Tamino, etc. You will see that the responses to your comments are kissy-face by comparison.
===========================================
D Boehm:
I am sitting here laughing. Comment at SS, or Closed Mind? Good luck on that one. You can post papers on those sites until you are blue, and then you will be banned for sharing knowledge.
Those sites are propaganda sites. There is nothing scietific about them.
@AndyG55 very well done but I fear you may as well have posted a picture of a Boeing 747 as it would have had the same effect on our confused friend Mark as your comments.
That is, both would be equally above his head.
@Camburn. I think that was entirely the point that my educated friend D Böehm was making.
Not to confuse Mark further, but I was just thinking how much CO2 would I need, at the IPCC calculated rate of +1 degree per doubling to get to +900 degrees?
Starting at 400 ppm, I figure we’d need 1.6 million parts per million to get to just +12 degrees. Yes, for 12 degrees, we’d need an atmosphere that was 160% CO2… but hey, that’s the IPCC numbers, not mine. 900 might be out of reach for CO2 alone….
zoot,
Not really my work.. just trying to educated the poor boy by using stuff that has been known for a long time. Trying to make up for his lost education. 🙁
davidmhoffer says:
and and on Venus there is no H2O positive feedback they can fudge the numbers with, either.….
There is an aspect here to take heart from – as a result of the content thus reviewed from AR5, many alarmists simply will not know which way to jump. The “extreme weather” backtracks identified by Pielke and others are the most obvious example, though not the only one. As others have mentioned, this is going to be a real doozy as the media narrative runs completely counter to what (it’s so fun to actually be able to use this phrase in this context…) “the science actually says”, based on the “gold standard” that we were told time and again is the IPCC bible(s), backed supposedly by those “97% of scientists”…..etc etc
Having spent a fair bit of time myself now poring over the AR5 documents it seems the backtracks – and admissions of outright mistakes are already numerous (the one on the ‘tropospheric hotspot’ is particularly good…) – with many more yet to find. So I’m going to put on my LOLLERSKATES and climb into my ROFLCOPTER whilst watching the “Skeptical” Science crew run around desperately in damage control mode catching up and desperately writing “rebuttals”.
Seeing the speed with which various IPCC participants are responding to this leak it is clear that Alec Rawls has gone against Napoleon’s excellent advice that one should never interrupt one’s enemy while he is making a mistake. There is no reason to suppose the final published AR5 report will be any better science, but there is every reason to expect the finessing to be more accomplished now..
IPCC climate “science” is openly political. The tricks of rhetoric and argumentation apply. Skeptics should hold back until they see the final product. Savaging the finished report will count in the public debate in a way that savaging a leaked draft never will. Rawls has blundered badly..
Nevermind the 10th warmest years occuring in the last 13, eh? head, sand, bury.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
REPLY: Never mind the fact that prior to adjustments to the surface temperature record being applied, such things weren’t happening regularly. Pop quiz – show a GHCN adjustment in the last 13 that cooled the surface temperature record. – Anthony
Danabanana,
Your false assumption is that the natural recovery from the LIA is due to human CO2 emissions, when in fact there is NO empirical, testable evidence supporting that belief. But carry on, belief systems have a mind of their own, despite reality.
The church of AGW is still trying to make the TSI variance look insignificant by only mentioning the percentage of change.
What should scare the wits out of people is exactly how much energy that “insignificant” percentage of change amounts to in how much solar energy hits the Earth.
“Oh it’s only a few watts per square meter difference so we’ll ignore it.” Yeah, just a few watts, times 127,516,117,977,000 square meters! That’s the cross sectional area of the “reference spheroid” of Earth, the virtual sphere used by GPS satellites and surveyors.
At .022 variance from the reference, Earth is actually rounder than the standard specification for a billiard ball.
Here’s a bar trivia winner. What’s the highest point on Earth? Most people would say Mt. Everest but that’s wrong. The highest point on Earth is Chimborazo, Equador. Huascaran, Peru is pretty much the same height. They are the two points farthest away from the center of the planet.
It can be no blunder to put the draft process into the light of day. The blogosphere has operated with deadly effect on the sort of dubious science that gets incorporated into the IPCC reports which, as many have already pointed out, are simply a means to add a veneer of science to a political agenda. It is better to have a view and a voice in the formulation of this “veneer” than to be presented with the “done deed” pushed by a media blitz.
As we have already seen on this blog, when the drafts are forced into the light, the authors who would make a contrary case are encouraged to speak out ( Forrest Mims, for example) and the issues are aired to a closer scrutiny. The opposition is forced to defend their untenable assertions and thus are exposed. This is all very important and Rawls should be applauded. To those who protest “breach of confidence”, I say that the IPCC should implement the transparency which it proclaims. Let us assist them in that laudable aim.
@D Böehm, Do you have evidence that this LIA recovery IS natural? last time I checked there was a general consensus that we were heading into an Ice Age but then temperatures started going up along with CO2 with no obvious natural variabilty playing a part. I’ll remind you that Earth hasn’t seen 391 ppm (and going up) of atmospheric CO2 for at least 400,000 years.
Take 2 empty soda bottles. Place place a thermometer in each. Fill up 1 with CO2 (NaHCO3 and vinegar will do the trick) and the other with nothing but normal air. Put them both next to a source of heat like a bulb and check the temperature inside. You’ll see the one with CO2 gets warmer than the other…
REPLY: WRONG. That experiment has been empirically debunked here. It fails so badly that Gore had to fake the results in post production for his “climate 101” video. http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
-Anthony
Danabannana
Here is some sand for your head:
GISS is notoriously corrupted data and Jim Hansen’s deliberate adulteration of this data is well documented. Such data corruption is Hansen’s modus operandi as one of the foremost of the political scientists and the progenitor of the dubious science behind the global warmers. He is the author of the infamous Venus greenhouse, which see. He is foremost in the broadcast of rank propaganda and panic. Your NASA link is his propaganda site.
Concerning global warming: a warmer world is to be welcomed because it means higher humidity levels, a shrinkage of deserts, more arable land, and a longer growing season all of which mean more food production. With a population that is expected to double and redouble in the coming century, food production is the real crises that mankind faces. Cooling is the scythe of death for it will bring reverse consequences: less food and mass famine with its attendant grief and upheavals. Formerly it was hoped that CO2 would help achieve the necessary warmth to avert future famine, but this hope has now been blasted by the failure of the climate models that forecast such warming.
So, stick your fingers in your ears, take a deep breath, bury yourself to the collarbone. Also, you will want to stay away from here.