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)
“It turns out that the thermometers were never in the jar recording the temperature rise presented in the split screen and the entire presentation was nothing but stagecraft and editing.
”
I dare you to do the experiment yourself instead of taking someone else’s word. It most certainly works in my Science class….
REPLY: Oh, please. You fail again teach. Read the entire thing before jumping to conclusions I DID do the entire experiment itself. Several times, with data loggers. I showed my work and the resultant data. What you are experiencing isn’t a real effect of CO2 LWIR re-emission, and if you bothered to investigate it, you’d learn whey you are fooling yourself with a flawed experiment just like Gore. Instead, you spout dogma. – Anthony
“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. ”
If you have proof of this to be correct, you could take the case to the Courts? noone stops you from doing this… however, lack of proof will.
REPLY: As will money. Next you’ll tell us how we are funded by big oil and that isn’t problem – Anthony
“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.”
Your higher humidity levels resulted in a disastrous year for UK crops. Low yields meant we are importing much of the grain this year but is not all bad as it was excellent year for slugs and Blight. Perhaps we should change the diet and eat more slugs, no?
Either your dataloggers are wrong or mine are. Then again, you could have faked your own results to prove yourself right just like you claim others do. I’ll add that I don’t follow Al Gore and that to me it seems that you have a very unhealthy obssesion about this man since you’re always bringing him up.
REPLY: Ah typical anonymous warmist, when cornered with facts and data they can’t refute, they go down the “faked” and “obsession” route. OK teach, here’s the deal. You are not only wrong, but wildly so. And, I don’t have to accept abuse and accusations from an anonymous coward. If you want to call me out as being dishonest, put your name name to your words, otherwise, per my policy page, I’m tossing you out of my home on the Internet just like I would if you called me dishonest in my own home.
Come back when you man up with a name and/or your own data – Anthony
I don’t think you are funded by big oil at all but I will say that you are very good at putting words in people’s mouths.
Danabanana:
At December 17, 2012 at 6:07 am you say to Anthony
Anthony cannot put words in your mouth because there is a lack of space in it until you remove your foot from it.
Richard
“Your higher humidity levels resulted in a disastrous year for UK crops. Low yields meant we are importing much of the grain this year but is not all bad as it was excellent year for slugs and Blight. Perhaps we should change the diet and eat more slugs, no?”
Danabanana,
So what is the optimum humidity for crop yield? Better still, what is the optimum temperature for crop yield? And how do we humans achieve that? As a teacher, and now an “expert” on climate change, you should have that information at your finger tips, and be able to explain it to an ignorant student like me.
danabannana
You are more mouth than brain. It is not for the courts, but the world of science and yes, it is well documented, but who needs proof concerning Jim Hansen?
By the way, you need to get your head together with your hero because his line is that drought is the great food and famine bugaboo while you seem to say that it is not drought but rain that will starve the world. Perhaps you hope to have it both ways. Go to Septical Science to peddle that crap. It won’t sell here.
Awww, Mr Watts banned me from the playground. Says a lot about debate (or lack of it) in this website…
REPLY: It says more about you when you change fake names and email addresses, instead of examining why you’ve failed to make your case and have abused your privilege of commenting here. So far you’ve used “greenjumper” “atomant666” “pepapig” and of course “Danabanana”. And you are a teacher? I fear for how you teach your students integrity.
And, this blog is now approaching its millionth comment with over 133 million views. Therefore, I don’t worry much about lack of debate, but I do care when people call me dishonest when they can’t assimilate what I’ve presented. – Anthony
Having not downloaded the AR5 yet, I was wondering how many of the citations in this post
http://errortheory.blogspot.ca/2012/02/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence.html
have now been included in the AR5?
Anyone?
They lie…a lot.
Danabanana
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…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too bad he/she/it has been banned. I’ve made a few bucks betting people about the results of this experiment. Most notably R. Gates who made the bet on this forum and then reneged.
You see Danabana, your experiment as proposed doesn’t demonstrate the greenhouse effect, it only demonstrates that your don’t understand what the greenhouse effect is in the first place. For your experiment to be a valid representation of the greenhouse effect, you’d need a light source that was almost all high frequency (visible light for example) and almost no infrared. You’d need an object inside each bottle that absorbed the high frequency energy and converted it to infrared. That’s how the greenhouse effect operates on earth, short wave passes through the atmosphere, gets absorbed by earth, which then re-radiates it as long wave which interacts with CO2. Your experiment as proposed models the sun as the source of the long wave which is completely backwards from the real world.
You’d also have to make certain you are choosing glass that passes through both SW and LW for your experiment to be valid. Good luck trying to find such glass. Then, you’d also have to produce an artificial atmosphere with amounts of CO2 in the hundreds of ppm and two different concentrations of same. Saturating one bottle with CO2 as you proposed entirely changes the physics at play and actually gives a completely different result versus varying small amount of CO2 (say from 400 ppm to 800 ppm).
So I’ve given you some pretty good starting points to investigate and see if I’m right. If you still want to make a bet or two, well, I’ll need you to promise that you won’t welch like R Gates did. Sheesh, all I wanted was a t-shirt saying I was right and he was wrong.
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…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUH???
What blog do you think you are reading?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/02/spencer-earths-sans-greenhouse-effect-what-would-it-be-like/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/a-short-primer-the-greenhouse-effect-explained/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/support-for-the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-leaves-the-likelihood-of-agw-tipping-points-in-the-cold/
Carter says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:04 am
FAO D Böehm
‘show us verifiable, empirical evidence proving that AGW exists.’ and here it is!…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both the 2007 and the 2012 major melts were linked to major storms/ winds.
How do you explain THIS?
davidmhoffer says:
I am not even saying that he is wrong. I am just noting that it would be nice if he or whoever makes or repeats the claims of significant changes that would constitute a “reversal” between AR4 and AR5 would document them. Such documentation would consist of showing both what was said in AR4 and what is said in AR5.
I am just being a “skeptic” in the true sense of the word and asking people to provide actual evidence for the claims that they make. Is that so unreasonable?
danabanana?
sounds like it might be that ignorant goose from SkS. “Dana cut his weeny” or whatever his real name is.
for the guys from elsewhere, Queenslanders are called “banana benders” and that’s where John Cook and his boyfriends are based.
Danabanana says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:39 am
The article you referenced said:
2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record.
Technically that is true since 2012, with an anomaly of 0.54 on GISS, would rank it 9th if it stayed this way. Then 2011, with an anomaly of 0.514, would rank 10th. Of course no one says that every year has to set a record in a warming world, but if each recent year is not at least in the top 5, then Earth is merely warm, but not warming. But NOAA places its emphasis on WARMING and not BEING WARM. For lack of warming, see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/#more-75771
And from NOAA:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
By the way, what is true for GISS is not true for RSS. With RSS, 2012 ranks 11th so far and 2011 will then be the 13th warmest.
It seemed clear to me that warming was being hindered by much “cooling” agents of which are also man-made. The big worry I think is that if we stop emitting cooling agents, the temperatures would start to climb at a higher rate. The feedback systems are all involved: ocean absorption, cloud reflectance, plant absorption, etc. Still the bottom line is that concentrations of warming and cooling agents such as aerosols, haze and reflecting chemicals, dust and smoke, are constantly increasing. Mammal breathing and farting is not really an issue here I don’t think. The issue is about trying to maintain harmony with the earth, you people adamant on proving Al Gore wrong must remember that intentions are everything, one must appreciate the ultimate intention of conservation over human error. I am sure there are opportunists on both sides and those must be weeded out. Not everyone is out trying to trick you in some universal conspiracy. To do that we all need to do some soul-searching and focus on the most important thing: the preservation of this planet we are responsible for and all the life and life-supporting systems on it. We see what automobiles and industry do to cities and to people living in them. We see species dying off by changes we are trying to comprehend and the most viable explanation is of greater absorption of heat. The issue is not so much about more storms or more droughts, but their changing patterns. So I say again, as was said a few years ago, it is obvious we are emitting as many cooling agents as we are warming agents, thus one will eventually win over the other or it just seems stupid to put ourselves in such a delicate situation. I don’t see how this leak changes any of this and how many of you see this as a holy grail. I find it sad many of you are forgetting the principles and responsibilities you are supposed to uphold. I hope you heed my words. Good luck.
@Mani
Ever heard the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?
Intentions are meaningless if they contradict facts. But making it about intentions is a great way to avoid accountability.
Mani:
Your post at December 18, 2012 at 12:34 am says
Well, I am doing all I can to uphold my “principles and responsibilities” by opposing the absurd AGW scare which threatens a constraint to the use of fossil fuels which would kill billions of people, mostly children.
Richard
Werner Brozek;
Technically that is true since 2012, with an anomaly of 0.54 on GISS, would rank it 9th if it stayed this way. Then 2011, with an anomaly of 0.514, would rank 10th.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Omigosh Werner! That means that 2011 and 2012 were the two coldest years in the past decade! The ice age is upon us!
[snip. Do not label others as “denialists”. Read the site Policy page. — mod.]
davidmhoffer says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:06 am
That means that 2011 and 2012 were the two coldest years in the past decade! The ice age is upon us!
Well not quite. 2008 would rank 13th on GISS. So what we can say, unless GISS has a very warm December, is that three of the last five years is ranked 9th or lower. With RSS, 2012 ranks 11th so far and 2011 will then be the 13th warmest, an 2008 is 22nd. So if things do not change here, three of the last five years will not even be in the top ten!
Now as for the coming ice age, how do we get that into the next ar5?
joeldshore:
In your post at December 15, 2012 at 8:40 pm you say
Please TRY to not be an idiot.
The entire AR5 draft has been leaked so anybody can read all of it. Nothing is “out of context”.
Indeed, Pielke cites the places from the draft which he quotes and thus makes it easy for anybody to check the “context”.
The “out of context” falsehood also failed to hide the disgraceful conduct of the ‘Team’ revealed by ‘climategate’. You would have done well to have learned from that failure.
Richard
Reblogged this on Veritaze.
richardscourtney says:
…Which is why it ought to be easy for someone to do a direct comparison between exactly what was stated in AR5 and exactly what is stated in AR4 and thus provide justification for the “almost complete reversal” claim. I apologize for asking for actual evidence to justify a claim…but you know, I am a “skeptic” in the true sense of the word and actually like to see a claim backed up by evidence. The claim of a complete reversal needs to be backed up by evidence showing exactly what was said before (in AR4) and exactly what is being said in this draft of AR5 and then each person can decide in their view whether the “almost complete reversal” claim is justified.
Yes, I know that I could go look myself…but the point is that I am not the one making the claim. So, I am not the one who should have to find the evidence to support it (or contradict it).