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)
The last time something like this happened I downloaded one of the AR5 ZOD files thinking that I could download the rest at my leisure. The files promptly disappeared and it took weeks to gather them up from other members of the public. I retrieved seven WG1 chapters and twelve WG2 chapters
http://www.gallopingcamel.info/IPCC.htm
This time around I am going to be much more diligent. I will emulate the Fool in Shakespeare’s 12th Night (Act 3, Scene 1):
“And, like the haggard, check at every feather that comes before his eye.”
Just because TSI can’t explain GCR, doesn’t mean TSI isn’t explaining Solar Forcing, nor does it say that GCR is now a forcing.
Great exposure to the sunlight of truth.
Finally, and earlier than I expected.
But it will take take time to convince the faithful.
Is your solar bombshell anything different than described by Dr. Alley’s during his 2010 congressional testimony, at the 4 minute mark of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
Seems likely that this is nothing new and has been openly discussed in the past.
Torrent worked fine and I will continue to seed.
I am no statistician, but can someone explain how the three middle columns in Table 2.7 of Chapter 5 for the HadCrut4 data work ? How can two identical sequential trends not equal the total trend for the same data set, if the individual trends just happen to be identical ?
Hadcrut4 1901-2011 1901-1950 1951-2011
0.075 .107 .107
i.e. How can 1901 to 2011 not equal .107 ?
Thanks.
Caution for sober, sensible, careful parties: What is conventionally referred to as “GCR” is being misinterpreted. It will be many years before this will be widely recognized. What has already been observed cannot and will not be changed by CERN CLOUD experiments. Beware the potential for severe obfuscation by parties who do not understand observed aggregate constraints based on the laws of large numbers and conservation of angular momentum. If I had to gamble that there might emerge one truly trustworthy North American agency on this file, I would put my money on NASA JPL. The potential for politically coerced corruption is staggering, so I suggest we keep a vigilant watch to help safeguard them from interference.
Many thanks to hippo. The download was painless.
PS: The discussion on Fig 1.5 of Chapter 1, Page 40, seems a bit light, and it will be interesting to see exactly where the error bars end up for the 2012 data, but at least the observed data vs. the models in presented. The text however seems to underplay the lack of clear explanation for the difference between prior models and observation.
“Magnet” works, I am seeding it right now.
If you have Vuze, it is simple to download:
1) In the text below, select (ie highlight) text BETWEEN >>> and << Open –> Torrent File…, then click on the button “Add From Clipboard”, and download should start immediately.
(NB: “Policy for Policymakers” is missing, all the other files are ok.)
>>>magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b7d1530b9d830f9ff5de6cb77c7f15d1b0a374cc&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.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80
<<<
Good luck.
UPDATE: Newer link with summary – ModE:
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
Got corrupted… should have read:
1) In the text below, select (ie highlight) text BETWEEN >>> and << Open –> Torrent File…, then click on the button “Add From Clipboard”, and download should start immediately.
The three “less” signs were reduced to two, and text that immediately followed was dropped:
2) Start Vuze, click File –> Open –> Torrent File…, then click on the button “Add from Clipboard”…
Sorry about the mess.
Would be nice to have a ‘preview’ available before submitting comments methink…
The Southern Ocean
Salutes the Harry van Loon.
Put her Draught, circled.
==============
A Big Thank You to krischel and zootcadillac for setting up the torrent. The downlaod took just 4 minutes 😉
btw: I too am a taxpayer who is living in Germany, where everyone, even the poorest, have to pay subsidies for the solar panels and wind turbines. And i am happy that someone is picking up the work that our four “democratic powers” simply ignore: expose, reveal, explain everything so that people can decide. How someone can object that is beyond me…
So thanlk you Alec Rawls.
“Seems likely that this (enhanced solar forcing) is nothing new and has been openly discussed in the past.”
But never admitted to by the IPCC. In AR3 and AR4 only considered and dismissed a few possible mechanisms. This is the first time they have acknowledged the evidence that SOME such mechanism seems to be at work, yet all of their conclusions are still based on the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI.
Pages 14-61 and 62.
Some excerpts copied for your info:
Because of a dearth (line 42) of quality precipitation data, it is very difficult to assess whether precipitation trends over the past few decades in the Arctic drainage areas also show an increase (ACIA, 2005). However, river gauge observations do show consistent runoff increases of approximately 10% in rivers draining into the Arctic since about the mid-20th century (Richter-Menge and Overland, 2009). This could be driven partly by the indirect effects of warming, including permafrost and snow melt (Section 2.5.2) in addition to undetected precipitation increases. The Arctic has of course also experienced a dramatic and well-documented deline in sea ice…
Next:
CMIP5 models (line19) Increasing precipitation is another important manifestation of Arctic climate change. The robustly project increased moisture flux convergence and precipitation in the pan-Arctic region over the 21st century, as did their AR4 counterparts (Kattsov et al., 2007; Rawlins et al., 2010
Then we get:
since nearly all models project a large precipitation increase rising above the variability year-round, it is likely the pan-Arctic region will experience a statistically-significant increase in precipitation by mid-century.
Finally, there is this:
In summary, there is high confidence that future temperature evolution of Arctic climate on decadal time scales and longer will likely continue to be dominated by the signals of anthropogenic climate change. It is likely the pan-Arctic region will experience a significant increase in precipitation by mid-century. There is high confidence that Arctic sea ice anomalies exhibit substantial interannual variability, so that ice loss or gain in any particular year cannot be taken as an indication or absence of a long-term trend due to anthropogenic forcing.
Comment: We have absolutely not enough data to discuss precipitation. However all computer models show increases. Therefore there will be more precipitation. And although the arctic has experienced a dramatic loss of sea ice in summary we cannot say anything anthropogenic about that, either. And this qualifies and the best that scientists can do? I want my tax dollars back.
bit torrent link works well, quite quick.
I’ll leave my computer seeding overnight, but I have slow upload speed.
Perhaps the author should dust off his undergraduate thermodynamics textbooks and look up the term “thermal equilibrium”. He might then realise that comparing the Sun-Earth system with a pot heating on a stove is a rather stupid comparison. That rather undermines his credibility in interpreting this draft report.
Thank you Alec. Well said, and well done sir.
To quote one of my favorite lines: “You can’t stop the signal”…
Bittorrent has made my copy in ‘no time flat’.. which means that at this point it’s impossible to stop. Entire government agencies have tried to stop folks shoveling things around, that they didn’t like being shoveled, and Bittorrent just adapts… ( There are even “Darknet” variations on it… so once even one person with such a knowing has a copy, well… )
It would be nice to publish an “MD5” hash for the package, so that folks can make sure it wasn’t changed by any agent along the way…
First off, on the topic at hand: I’ve tended to be more interested in the scientific assessments than in the summaries. Not that the latter are unimportant; I’ve just left it to others to worry about them. But I’ll look forward to seeing what this trove has to offer.
Regarding Isaac Helds’s 3-box model (I called this a 2-box model above, regarding the deep ocean as a “boundary” rather than another box):
Alec Rawls says:
December 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm
It really looks like you gave a long account of heat transfer, including two references to the 2-box model, and he replied only, “It sounds like you understand.” You seem to have read too much into that.
He used them. His simple models all take their parameters from GCMs, especially GFDL’s global climate model, CM2.1. For setting a time lag, he compared his simple models to the GCM. In his blog post #3, which you linked, he shows that 4 years works better than 0 years for a 1-box model. If 30, 50, or 100 years worked better, he would have used that. (Here’s the link to blog post #3:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/05/2-linearity-of-the-forced-response/ )
Held’s answer to the second comment in this post says, in his own words, what he’s trying to do:
In his blog post #6, which you also linked, in his answer to the first comment, he starts by saying, “I wouldn’t take this two-box model that seriously. I use it here because it is the simplest model that interpolates between the short time limit in which the heat uptake is proportional to the temperature perturbation and the long time limit in which the heat uptake decays to zero. There are a lot of time scales involved in the oceanic adjustment…”
On Google Scholar, searching “gcm increased long-term solar” gave me almost 29,000 hits. I’m sure many of the later ones are less relevant, but on the first two pages, they generally looked like studies dealing with the effects of a long-term increase (or in some cases, decrease) in solar irradiance. Those modeling people model everything; that’s what keeps them busy and off the streets.
But all you did with the 3-box model was to think of it. You seemed to have a lot of assumptions about how it would work. If the heat transfer between box 1 and box 2 were very slow (as you expect at the boundary between well-mixed surface water and deeper water) then it would make very little difference. If you had box 2 as part of the well-mixed layer, taking heat rapidly from it, but giving it up slowly to deeper waters–again, very little difference. And those differences would just about disappear when you fit the simple model to the GCM. Just because you can think of a model doesn’t really tell you anything, especially for a very artificial model like these. There may be an exception if you already know the system very well, e.g., if you already know the answer. Now, if you can put realistic numbers on it and run it, and check it against known data, you might get something. But just thinking of the model, and thinking about it, doesn’t give you an answer.
If a significant 50-year response to solar forcing was in the system, the GCMs would probably have shown it, although the usual cautions about any model apply. If they didn’t show a 50-year response, a 3-compartment model wouldn’t help. Especially one that hasn’t been tried.
DeSmogblog says “practically anyone can register for these positions using an online form. Nobody appoints “expert reviewers”.
How can it be a leak if “practically anyone” can register as a reviewer? All he’s done is cut out some bureaucracy.
Well done Alex, BT took only a minute to download. BitTorrent showed clients in US (mainly) but also Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Denmark and Holland (and me of course in UK) -.It’s gone global.
@AndyG55:
Part of the beauty of “torrents” is that it is a parallel transfer. So it doesn’t matter if your uplink is slow. If there are 1000 folks with just 5 kB uplinks, then a person doing a download can theoretically get 5 MB of download shoved at them. Typically the protocol allots the traffic so that the workload is “spread around” with faster links doing a bit more of the work; but remember that this was designed for things like “first night release” of a popular music album. Think a million folks all wanting to download…
So even WHILE doing the download, each person starts to “share”. In that way, a given 1 kB block can leave the first server to one party, and then start a geometric progression of expansion all on its own as each person who gets that block, shares with anyone who needs it. In this way, the originating sever really would only need to share each block once, with any one party, and from that moment on everyone can get a whole copy just by swapping blocks with each other. (In practice, the first half dozen folks get large batches of the file, usually not overlapping, and then the later folks to arrive start getting chunks from each of them and from the main server. So rapidly there are a few 100% copy ‘seeds”…)
It’s really a rather elegant and effective method…
So don’t be dissuaded from leaving a 100% “seed” up just because you are on a slow link. I have about a dozen files I seed where I’m the only guy still serving up that (ancient) Linux release. Every so often someone shows up to get a copy. (One guy in Romania took 3 days to download… his link was even slower than mine 😉 I presume he had an old slow computer and that was why he wanted the old fast small Linux …) The whole idea is that even folks on an old modem based dial up line can be part of the “swarm” sharing little 1 kb blocks with each other…
FWIW, now that I have a copy, I’ll be moving it over to my “always on” torrent server for old Linux releases… So while the machine I have it on now will be seeding most of the night, eventually I’ll burn a copy to more durable media and put it on the industrial box… Usually a ‘torrent’ has a big rush up front, but a few weeks later interest dies down and ‘seeds’ thin out. Having it just laying around on an old box as a torrent archive helps the guy who shows up in 2 months and wants a copy, but finds everyone else as ‘moved on’… So “seeding now” is important, but it can also be important to “seed later too”… at least for a couple of folks…
@Alec Rawls:
There is a minor ‘black art’ to using “odd” characters in URLs. Usually you can just look up the unicode value and stick that in where the ‘odd’ character sits. These typically start with an & and then end with a semi-colon. In between in a number (sometimes with an x in it for ‘hex’ numbers).
The usual one that trips folks up a period, but it can be most any special characters. At this site you get a nice table for all the options. I usually just do a web search on “Unicode” and whatever the special character is, then find this site name in the list. So “Unicode plus sign” will pull it up, or something like it.
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2b/index.htm
Lets us know that the + value is unicode 43 (look down to the long table of ‘encodings’ and pick out the one named “HTML”… there is also a “HTML entry (hex)” you could use of x2b if you are a hex kind of guy 😉
You would put in the leading & and trailing ; like this:
+
How to print out THAT example, without letting WordPress steal it and put in an “+” in that space, is an ‘excercise for the student’ 😉
Some, like the ampersand, have a text (name) call as well:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/26/index.htm
tells us it is “amp” so you could put in a line & to get one. (Though wordpress looks like it doesn’t steal an & other programs might).
That page has a search box up top for finding other interesting characters.
What all this means is that you have the choice of taking the + out of the pdf name, or putting the + into the URL text.
@Don B:
Thanks! Interesting paper…
@Rob W:
I’m coming to the conclusion it takes silver nails, delivered at high speed… (and perhaps with a cross, garlic, and holy water in hand… a ‘weir vampire’? )
@Janf20:
Look at how “Link TV” works. Very Islam friendly and very left biased and pro-AGW. I suspect oil money funds it. Why? Coal is their major competitor on the oil front. Anything that weakens the industrial west is a ‘feature’ to both “world Socialism” and Islam… At least, that’s the thesis I would investigate. (No, no evidence, just that’s the way I’d assemble a search path for your proposed scenario.)
@RobK:
Wordpress likes to “steal” leading angle brackets that look like they might be a HTML marker, so you need to use the same Unicode Encoding ‘trick’ as above.
The open angle bracket:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/3008/index.htm
#12296;
〈
giving a 〈
The close angle bracket:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/3009/index.htm
#12297
〉
giveing a 〉
(putting both in just in case I don’t get the meta-meta characters right to prevent ‘stealing’ them 😉
just took a look over at Skeptical science,
“So why would the latest IPCC report contradict these studies when its purpose is to summarize the latest and greatest scientific research? The answer is simple — it doesn’t. Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report”