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 CERN CLOUD experiment is being misrepresented as something much more than what it is. It does not have the power to erase recorded history. The experiment can’t answer the solar-terrestrial question. It’s not designed to do that. It can only answer a very narrow technical question. Whether the answer to that very narrow technical question comes back positive or negative, the solar-terrestrial relationship exists. There’s no need to suspend judgement on existence. The expensive experiment is about deciding details of how to micro-model. Suspension of judgement on technical details of how to micro-model is defensible, but the macro picture is already clear. Build in delays on how to micro-model if you must, but be lucidly aware that trying to conflate micro-modeling uncertainties with macro-observation certainties comes across as (whether it is or not) maliciously deceptive evasion, a sure way to immediately eliminate trust. If sensible parties don’t confront such (possibly accidental) obfuscation tactics head-on, the potential for enduring distortion is enormous since the pool of people with lucid, first-hand awareness of aggregate constraints is critically small. The bottom line is that no one can look sensible arguing against the laws of large numbers and conservation of angular momentum. No sensible person is going to consciously step into such a strictly governed pair of cross-hairs. Thus, we have at our disposal an easy means of identifying in the clearest terms dark agents of ignorance &/or deception. Please be careful.
Kudos to Alec Rawls for this excellent story. The IPCC is looking for a way to rationalize the fact that there has been no global warming for a decade and a half. The answer is simple: CO2 does not have the claimed effect, and the planet is not cooperating with the climate alarmists.
Dana Nuccitelli says:
You do realize that amplifying a negative number just gives you a bigger negative number, right? In other words, you’re arguing for bigger solar cooling since 1980.
Totally muddled thinking. “Bigger solar cooling”?
That would be ‘less solar warming’, Dana. You don’t inject ‘cooling’ into a system, you reduce warming. But that is the kind of fuzzy thinking we’ve come to expect from the logic-challenged alarmist crowd.
Fred Nietzsche says:
December 14, 2012 at 5:29 am
I would like to know how many people leaving the above comments have the requisite qualifications to understand what is in the report. What I mean by requisite qualifications is both a good understanding of the science involved in the debate, an open mind and the ability to discriminate between truth and BS. I venture that the answer is “very, very few”. It’s a bit like reading James Lovelock, a critical mind can see many flaws but a dull, normal mind just accepts what is said in faith. “Would the last person to leave please turn out the enlightenment”? (This Is Serious Mum – De Rigueurmortis)
Are you saying that the subscribers on blogs such as “Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network” are more ‘enlightened’? I like to think that this blog shows in the main, people from all walks of life can think for themselves and not regurgitate the alarmist dogma and their propensity to impugn people for not toeing the party line!
Sorry, added the summary pdf to the torrent. New magnet:
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
This will download to the same folder name as the old torrent that didn’t have the summary pdf. Thanks for the tip Bob K.!
davidmhoffer says:
December 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm
…………………….gems such as this one:
“It is virtually certain that globally-averaged surface and upper ocean (top 700m) temperatures averaged over 2016–2035 will be warmer than those averaged over 1986–2005.”
——————-
David the key word there is “virtually”. You know, as in virtual reality.
It means they are certain the virtual computer is virtually right, basically, sort of right, almost, nearly, but not quite right. But, if you close your eyes and imagine in your minds eye how bad CO2 is you can understand how fossil fuel has damaged our virtual earth, according to the virtual computer programs they put together to identify and eliminate this virtual CAGW.
cn
peejeshare isnt working. no file available
MODS: It might be helpful to replace all the previous magnet links with the new one, in case someone doesn’t read through the comments to the end.
Please strike out the old one, and place this:
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
Or, even better, put it as an update in the post itself!
Unfortunately, the first one was missing the Summary PDF, and you can’t add a file to a torrent without changing its hash value.
REPLY: I’ve updated the link in the “update” of the posting, and I’ve put the new link under any of the old links in prior comments. (Trying to both preserve the original ‘flow’ / context while having the new link clearly the right one.) -ModE
The Melbourne’s Age spin.
Man’s role in climate change ‘virtually certain’
Chris R. says:
December 13, 2012 at 3:07 pm
This is going to make Leif Svalgaard mad, since he doesn’t believe the GCR-cloud link
is significant.
As the Report says: “there is high confidence (medium evidence and high agreement) that the GCR-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei or their change over the last century or during a SC in a climatically-significant way”
I downloaded the RAR folder successfully from filedropper.com – It’s 121MB which decompresses to 131MB. A word of caution – I clicked on the first of the links provided by “gnomish” and my Antivirus blocked it with a warning message. I didn’t try the other two!
Total Mass Retain says: “He might then realise that comparing the Sun-Earth system with a pot heating on a stove is a rather stupid comparison.”
True, but you have to realize the analogy works on the masses. The masses being the low-interest, just tell me what to think and do, main stream media & “the View” watchers.
The analogy is perfect suited for the vast majority of Washington, D.C. politicians.
Fred Nietzsche says:
December 14, 2012 at 5:29 am
I don’t suppose its possible to give a real answer to how many commenters are suitably qualified to comment – but after a few years visiting this blog, I would guess that at least 50% of commenters are well educated (degree or higher) and there is a quite varied range of expertise – some may be simple geologists/engineers (like myself), others maybe IT specialists, or statistical analysts, etc. Then again, many other commenters are equally useful in their ‘non-scientific’ appraisal sometimes – because they have not been classicially science ‘influenced’ and can often ask/probe the right questions. What you have, in effect, is a wide range of generally ‘open minded’ people prepared to look at EVIDENCE, and to discuss and decide for themselves what any CONCLUSIONS might be – not the spoon fed IPCC type predigested and overly masticated crud everyone else takes as read!
Alec Rawls says:
December 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm
“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.
========
Perhaps because the unverified effects and active mechanisms are of very low relative significance. It’s like a “fine tuning knob”, as Dr. alley described.
Fat Tony says: “This hasn’t been about the Science for ages: it’s a political/religious movement akin to Islam in its zeal to control us all.”
It is also about $$$$. With Faux Climatologists getting funding for job security and their new lab toys, and the redistribution of wealth from “Evil Rich” countries to poor countries. Along with power players making money on the selling of “Going Green” products, which carry a higher price tag (thus more profits) than their non-green counter parts.
Here are some more mirrors for the RAR archive. You can use UnRarX on a Mac or Stuffit Expander (Windows/Mac) to uncompress (both free).
http://goo.gl/RwQZh
http://goo.gl/DrEN5
AR-5 really does scare the socks off. The fear is abrupt global cooling, however, rather than AGW.
For example;
• Observations of Antarctic sea ice extent show a small but significant increase by 1.4 [1.2 to 1.6] % per decade between 1979 and 2011. {4.2.3}
The reduction in Arctic sea ice and increase in Antarctic sea ice has happened before and is called the polar see-saw or polar anomaly. (See Svensmark’s attached paper.) The polar see-saw occurs during Dansgaard-Oscheger events (also called Bond events). It is now apparent the later 20th century warming was a Bond event. Gerald Bond found evidence of cosmogenic isotope changes at each of a long series of warming followed by cooling events (he has able to track 25 events through current interglacial Holocene and into the last glacial period, at which point he reached the limit of the range of the proxy analysis technique) which indicates a solar magnetic cycle change caused the warming followed by cooling cycle.
Roughly every 6000 years to 8000 years, the Bond event (warming followed by gradual cooling) is followed by an abrupt cooling event which is called a Heinrich event. We have experienced the most activity set of solar magnetic cycles and the longest continuous set of high activity solar magnetic cycles in 11,000 years. There has been an abrupt change from a set of very, very, high solar magnetic cycle activity to what will be apparent next year is a special Maunder minimum. The cosmogenic isotope record indicates that pattern correlates with a Heinrich event.
I believe I understand the mechanisms related to the Heinrich events and have moved on to astrophysics problems looking for an explanation as to how the sun could cause what is observed and looking for observational evidence to understand and support a model for the fundamental physics implications. Fascinating subject. Interesting puzzle. There is outstanding, mature, organized, observational analysis which has been completed by others. There are unexplained structural anomalies throughout the field (cosmology), which are recognized by specialists as paradoxes or anomalies. The problem situation is similar to the rules required to solve a jigsaw puzzle. The observations fit together logically to create one picture or story. The trick is to follow or use all of the observations, rather than to cut the observations, ignore the observations, or create your own jigsaw pieces, to fit a preferred, given, or assumed story or picture. It is significantly easy to solve a jigsaw like puzzle at the point where one has a fairly good idea of the general outline of the picture or story. This is physics, not magic. There is a physical explanation for past physical events and future physical events.
It is truly astonishing how far along the work goes before someone notes the pieces obviously fit together to tell a different story than the story that was selected before there was observational evidence to solve the problem.
I would highly recommend viewing Anthony Watts’ interview of Dr. Sebastian Lüning where Dr. Lüning discusses the evidence concerning past solar forcing of the planet’s climate. This is an outstanding presentation and interview. The interviewer is polite, unobtrusive, and informed. The presenter is logical, professional, and polite. The presentation is peer reviewed and observationally based. There is no music to emphasize or to make propaganda points, there are no sound bites taken out context, there are no ad hominem statements, there are no movie clips of icebergs or hurricanes, there is no appeal to opinion polls to support the conclusions, and so on.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/30/more-wuwt-tv-interview-and-presentation-with-dr-sebastian-luning/
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event
Temperature proxy from four ice cores for the last 140,000 years, clearly indicating the greater magnitude of the D-O effect in the northern hemisphere.
Dansgaard–Oeschger events (often abbreviated D–O events) are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events.
In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[2] Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30-40 years is more common.
Heinrich events only occur in the cold spells immediately preceding D-O warmings, leading some to suggest that D-O cycles may cause the events, or at least constrain their timing.[3]
The course of a D-O event sees a rapid warming of temperature, followed by a cool period lasting a few hundred years.[4] This cold period sees an expansion of the polar front, with ice floating further south across the North Atlantic ocean.[4]
Although the effects of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are largely constrained to ice cores taken from Greenland,[5] there is evidence to suggest D-O events have been globally synchronous.[6] A spectral analysis of the American GISP2 isotope record [7] showed a peak of [18O:16O] abundance around 1500 years. This was proposed by Schulz (2002) [8] to be a regular periodicity of 1470 years. This finding was supported by Rahmstorf (2003);[9] if only the most recent 50,000 years from the GISP2 core are examined, the variation of the trigger is ±12% (±2% in the 5 most recent events, whose dates are probably most precise…
What … IPCC dares withhold its taxpayer-funded “Climate Science” version?!?
http://phrasegenerator.com/academic
Spreading this leaked report to the far holes of the interwebs (and resultant spasms) has already caused 786.3 Kg of CO2 emissions.
The Horror!
Let me guess how this will turn out in the final report, solar forcing is large, but it’s CO2 that makes the climate responsive to this forcing so we have to limit CO2 regardless…
AND on the BBC News the reporting on the UNIPCC in Doha is……………….nothing, rien, nada, zip, zilch!
Except this little O/T missive..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20663875
Frankly, how on Earth (excuse the pun) on a planet consisting of a surface made up of 71% water, can they seriously claim they can measure a significant local difference I do not know. Although such a report would play into the hands of the PDREU Commissars demanding we use less water & new storage reservoirs are bad things for the environment!!! You are next my colonial friends, just you wait & see!
This is absolutely ridiculous. The report makes NO claim of game-changing cosmic ray effects – it says they are NEGLIGIBLE. This is spread of misinformation and due to the severity of the climate change threat, is frankly dangerous. You seem to be intelligent enough – you must know that what you’re doing is immoral. You are deeply deluded.
On the Aussie ABC last night yes a “leak” announcement from the IPCAC team person (it had a picture of him) indicating “cosmic rays cause cloudiness”. No mention of the Sun. But following some pictures of clouds a picture of a raging bush fire with the voice over that man is responsible for at least half the recent warming. Well I suppose that’s something given previously all warming was attributed to CO2.
I suspect that IPPC report contributors who don’t really care about the science and only want affirmation of AGW, already detected the report contributors’ efforts to include solar influences. If I were them, I would be scrambling behind the scenes to have the solar influences blotted out in the final report due to be released to the public in 1 years time.
Therein lies the basis for the release of this draft version at this time. It is to embarrass and shame the report final editors into keeping the solar influence language in future revisions. To imply further gerrymandering of the data and to undermine the future, edited IPCC’s report’s credibility.
This is hardball politics. Now we need to put names and faces on the IPCC editors who were trying to “disappear” the solar influences sections.
This Torrent Leak is a brutal move to bully the IPCC.
I predict they will, nevertheless attempt to white wash the leak as an attempt by a disgruntled denier to steer the report in a direction not held by the majority and to release a final report without the solar influences language. Why do I think this? Because they are activist leftist liars and it is the only play they have to save their own skins.
The like of Borenstein and Monbiot are already spinning a cover story…. just you wait and see.
Alec Rawls,
Thank you.
I am grateful to you for now having transparent and open access to the full AR5 draft so very soon after the closing of the expert reviewer commenting period and having it without needing to wait ~ 8 months for the IPCC official version’s release.
This is a nice holiday gift. I will share with all my numerous associates!
Let a totally transparent and open public scrutiny continue unabated. the public can see first hand the artificially forced ‘consensus’ that has caused the significant level of alarm-focused bias in climate science.
NOTE: the language in the full AR5 draft can be described as much ‘less than words can say’. I think such pathetic quality in science communication is exactly why trust in climate science is questionable.
I am settling down for a long holiday read.
John
G says:
December 14, 2012 at 7:36 am
This is absolutely ridiculous. The report makes NO claim of game-changing cosmic ray effects – it says they are NEGLIGIBLE. This is spread of misinformation and due to the severity of the climate change threat, is frankly dangerous. You seem to be intelligent enough – you must know that what you’re doing is immoral. You are deeply deluded.
—————————————————————————————————————
And the empirical evidence you base this on rather than deluded model simulation is ??