Full AR5 draft leaked

From http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

Posted by Alec Rawls, 12/13/12

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 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:

Continue reading at Full AR5 draft leaked here.

Also available at WUWT. [Thanks to Mike for reporting my broken WUWT link. My 404 message is: “Sorry, but you are looking for something that is not here” which isn’t nearly as good as the Haiku he gave me: “You step in the stream, but the water has moved on. This page is not here.” Thanks, Mike – RT]

34 Thoughts on “Full AR5 draft leaked

  1. Mike Jowsey on December 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm said:

    Cheers RT. The haiku comes from here:
    http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/haiku.html

    There are some pearlers.

  2. The site appears to be down. I get a 500 (internal server) error on all the pages

    I expect a mirror will be up soon.

  3. Anthony confirms that the main site is down but has provided an alternative link to a RAR archive

    I am downloading this now in case anyone needs it.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on December 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm said:

    Plenty to talk about now until AR5 is formally released. Alec Rawls, take a bow. He must have had enough of his blue-in-the-face, banging-head-against-wall position as per this at WUWT:-

    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 [hotlinked])

    This leak already exposes some very important solar/cloud uncertainty and I suspect there are other solar/cloud issues swept under the carpet – let alone the rest of the report.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 14, 2012 at 7:54 pm said:

      Bob Tisdale says:
      December 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Alec, go to chapter 10, Figure 10.5. They’re still using regression analysis to remove TSI, ENSO & volcanic aerosols from the instrument temperature record for attribution. (And we know they can’t remove the effects of ENSO that way.) In other words, they’re not considering enhanced solar contributions when it comes to the bottom line.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on December 14, 2012 at 8:28 pm said:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    I’m going to have to stop reading Ch11 because it is just making me angry. The manipulation and deception is beyond belief. In between the paragraphs so convoluted that they are meaningless, there are outrageous 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.”

    WELL DUH!

    Since it is already warmer NOW than it was over the average of 1986 to 2005, the temperature could flat line from now to 2035 and that would still be true! In fact, the temperature could DECLINE from now until 2035 and that might still be true.

    Notice also that they cleverly left a gap between the end of one period (2005) and the beginning of the next period (2016)? Eliminates the falling temps we’ve seen since 2005 until now! They’re hoping that their precious warming resumes by 2016 and this cooling period is then excluded from the data that would support the statement!

    I’m not even done the first 5 pages and I’ve shouted b*llsh*t out loud a dozen times already.

  6. Nice try but unfortunately this is yet another selective case of cherry picking.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 1:06 am said:

      Sherwood:-

      “The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, however, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect.”

      The whole point is the “effect” Simon. The effect has been observed. It is the mechanism that is in dispute, not the effect. Papers that fail to find an effect do not discount papers that do.

      Rawls:-

      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.

      Of course the warmist crowd misconstrue/misunderstand/misrepresent any mechanism counter to their creed so there’s plenty of papers to choose from for that purpose but the alternative science is developing despite their efforts to put the stoppers on it. Either that or there are those who understand perfectly well e.g. Real Climate (they’re intelligent guys, they know they’ve got a formidable opponent) and go out of their way to spin it away with their own bastardized version of any alternative mechanism to be lapped up by the less cognizant.

      This is not going away Simon, no matter how much huffing and puffing.

      BTW, I see Dana at SkS trotted out PMOD (cherry picking BTW – not the only composite) and a bunch of argument already largely addressed:_

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

      Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing

      Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.

      http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/07_reports/scientific_reports/dnsc-scientific_report_3_2007.pdf

      Dana doesn’t pay much attention to the 21st century except for Figure 4 and an inconsistency (according to him):-

      “So, if GCRs really do amplify the solar influence on global temperatures, since 1980 they are amplifying a cooling effect. In fact, GCRs reaching Earth recently hit record high levels (Figure 4), yet temperatures are still way up”

      So lets fill in the blanks for him starting with the source of his Fig 4 plot at NASA:-

      Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/

      “The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls “a perfect storm of cosmic rays.”

      At least one oil driller has managed to join the dots with some additional plots (why can’t Dana):-

      Blank sun, cosmic rays, clouds and cooling

      http://themigrantmind.blogspot.co.nz/2010/04/blank-sun-cosmic-rays-clouds-and.html

      The warming-obsessed Dana completely misses the detail (probably intentionally for his audience) of what has happened to CRI, IMF, albedo and temperature since 1980 and since 2001 in particular (the oil driller didn’t). No cooling since 2001 I hear you say Simon. Then perhaps a look at HadSST2 SH (bulk of the world’s ocean) with the CRI/IMF/albedo graphs in mind:-

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2000/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2001/trend

      Dimming/brightening is an established phenomenon (will be interesting to see AR5 treatment of it), Wild et al 2012 (among others) updates the investigation here (not necessarily definitive because it’s only BSRN):-

      Surface Radiative Fluxes as Observed in BSRN

      http://www.gewex.org/BSRN/BSRN-12_presentations/Wild_FriM.pdf

      In short, there’s nothing inconsistent about solar/cloud/albedo/GCR/IMF/dimming/brightening/temperature in general but research is only really just beginning to scrape the surface of it all.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 2:18 am said:

      >”Papers that fail to find an effect do not discount papers that do”

      To clarify. There seems to be a fixation on the posited GCR mechanism e.g. Readfern, Tamblyn, Sherwood. But what Rawls is highlighting (and he states clearly in WUWT comments) is that the IPCC is admitting there is SOME mechanism (not TSI alone and not necessarily TSI/GCR alone) producing observed effects (those papers are cited) that is as yet undetermined. The Chapter 7 quote goes on that GCR as a possible explanation has been analyzed but papers have not been corroborated and Tamblyn reproduces the entire GCR passage but misses the point entirely.

      The papers referred to that fail to “find an effect” are GCR related meaning they fail to find a GCR effect in isolation. But AN effect remains nonetheless that has to be explained. If GCR – the strongest contender to date – doesn’t (a premature assessment), something else must and it certainly isn’t GHGs.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 12:01 pm said:

      Basically, trying to identify one “control knob” and discarding GCR on that basis is spurious. There could be a number of mechanisms working in combination, only one of which is GCR.

      But the planet is only now experiencing record (in the measured era) CRI. The effect of that wont be known conclusively for several years i.e. It is far to early to dismiss the hypothesis.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 9:39 am said:

    New Scafetta paper:-

    Solar Irradiance Modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) Temperature Gradients: Empirical Evidence for Climate Variation on Multi-decadal Timescales

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/new-paper-by-scafetta-finds-most.html

    “This newly discovered relationship between TSI and the EPTG represents the ‘missing link’ that was implicit in the empirical relationship that Soon (2009) recently demonstrated to exist between multi-decadal TSI and Arctic and North Atlantic climatic change.”

  8. Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 am said:

    Prof. Pielke Jr. Analysis of UN IPCC Draft report : IPCC ‘shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods’

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report–IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

  9. The graph of observed temperature anomalies vs model projections paints an interesting picture

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 11:46 am said:

      Someone at WUWT suggested (unkindly) that they keep SAR and throw rest away.

      That graph doesn’t include AR5 simulations, oddly. Most of those could be thrown away too.

    • You can look at that graph, and then listen to all the doom-mongers telling us that it is worse than we though and that we are heading for 4-6 degrees, and my reaction is…WTF?

    • Meanwhile, the New Scientist says this:

      “The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. “If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.”

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html

      yes we are in denial about our denial that denies that the observed temperatures even get close to the models.

    • That’s funny, the IPCC seems to have ignored Foster and Rahmstorf 2012 and have ignored their exclusion of ENSO. Looks like Tisdale was right all along.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm said:

      They might not have cited F&R but they’re up to the same tricks:-

      Bob Tisdale says:
      December 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Alec, go to chapter 10, Figure 10.5. They’re still using regression analysis to remove TSI, ENSO & volcanic aerosols from the instrument temperature record for attribution. (And we know they can’t remove the effects of ENSO that way.) In other words, they’re not considering enhanced solar contributions when it comes to the bottom line.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 17, 2012 at 10:26 am said:

      I’m assuming Andy, that the graph linked above was the subject of this discussion:-

      andyS December 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm

      Thomas,
      If you think the IPCC is being unduly conservative… [off topic]

      andyS December 16, 2012 at 8:53 am

      So science is now off topic?

      Gareth December 16, 2012 at 9:22 am

      Nope. Attempting to change the subject is. And there’s very little at µWatts that bears any resemblance to science…

      andyS December 16, 2012 at 9:51 am

      The graph I presented was from the iPCC.

      Gareth December 16, 2012 at 10:24 am

      No. It was from a draft, so not final. And being wildly misinterpreted. Enough, please.

      # # #

      Might have touched a raw nerve there Andy.

    • Yes, it was the graph linked above. I decided to call it a day, otherwise permanent banishment would probably entail.
      I found it rather troubling watching Dave Frame get bullied off that thread too

  10. Pingback: The IPCC AR5 Leak: why do the IPCC object? | New Zealand Climate Change

  11. Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 3:00 pm said:

    Mims SOD comments are a revelation. Quite a tussle going on as to what to disclose and what to hush up:-

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mims_ipcc_ar5_sod_review.pdf

  12. Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 5:02 pm said:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Glenn Tamblyn says: @ December 14, 2012 at 2:35 am

    For anyone who is interested….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks,

    I took your information and annotated a version with the numbers and with links (I have not check all of them) [extremely helpful but not what Glenn had in mind I don’t think]

    Impact of Cosmic Rays on Aerosols and Clouds

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/#comment-1173566

    + + +

    So here’s a sample of AR5’s analysis in the context of some extra information. Bottom of Carol’s annotations:-

    McCracken and Beer, 2007)
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JA012117.shtml
    provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

    But what’s the timeframe of McCracken and Beer, 2007?

    Contribution of changing galactic cosmic ray flux to global warming
    U. R. Rao

    The primary cosmic ray intensity recorded during the space era 1960–2005 is the lowest in the last 150 years. Similar conclusion has been independently reached by Taricco et al.7 by analysing the 44Ti activity in meteorites. During the last 150 years when the carbon-dioxide intensity increased from around 280 ppm to 380 ppm, we find the corresponding decrease in cosmic ray intensity is about 9%, as seen from the data presented by McCracken and Beer3,4

    http://repository.ias.ac.in/42732/1/1_pub.pdf

    McCracken and Beer’s data ended at 2005. CRI is now space era high:-

    Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/

    How that space era high relates to the previous 150 years, I’ve not found out.

    # # #

    Next job is to dissect this from second to bottom of Carol’s annotations:-

    7.4.5.3 Synthesis

    Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012;
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm said:

      For some reason this paper didn’t make the cut:-

      ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN COSMIC RAY INTENSITY AND CLOUD COVER
      1 A.D.Erlykin(1,2), G.Gyalai(3), K.Kudela(3), T.Sloan(4), A.W.Wolfendale(2)
      2009
      http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4442.pdf

      5 Conclusion
      We advocate a scenario for the origin of correlations between CR and LCC, based on the parallel influence of solar activity. The solar irradiance rises with the sunspot number in the middle of the solar cycle. The radiation is strongest in the tropics and subtropics. Though the relative rise of the irradiance is small, and only about 0.1%, it causes a rise of the mean surface temperature and an increase of the vertical convection flows of the heated air. The subsequent change in supersaturation of the air at different heights can cause the changes in LCC and MCC. Warm air from below 3 km rising to greater heights will cause the LCC to fall and MCC to rise. By this way the rise of convection flows leads to a considerable magnification (to ∼2%) of the effect of enhanced solar irradiance. Formulating briefly, one can say that in the maxima of the solar cycles the updraft becomes stronger and this effect is strongest in the tropics and subtropics, as well as in the southern latitude bands where there is the largest fraction of area covered by the oceans. It is well known that the variations of solar activity are followed by the variations of CR intensity at Earth; the reduction of CR intensity coincident with the reduction of LCC is therefore by no means evidence of the causal connection between these two phenomena – they correlate with each other due to their common origin – the change of solar irradiance at the Earth.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 16, 2012 at 10:54 am said:

      >”Next job….”

      The difference between Agee 2012 and Marsh and Svensmark 2003 and subsequently a reply to Sun and Bradley (M&S04) seems to be some adjustment M&S made to the ISCCP data and the different datasets used by the respective parties. The series in Agee looks nothing like the M&S series and there’s an obvious breakdown in LC% and CR% from about 2003 in Agee Fig 2 page 3:-

      http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf

      M&S03 LC% vs CR% looks very different:-

      http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/SvensmarkLowCloudComicRaySMALL.jpg

      M&S04 shows the adjustment to LC% after 1995 in Fig 3:-

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003JD004063.shtml

      I suspect there’s a satellite or provider change at that time but I cannot access M&S04 to see what the actual justification is for an adjustment. The S&B04 reply to the M&S04 comment sheds some light on the difference in datasets (ISCCP IR LCC vs ISCCP VIS/IR LCCsfc) and there was in fact a changeover of cloud data provider at the end of 2004 (ASOS). S&B04 reply:-

      http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/sun2004.pdf

      There is a cautionary note in Agee 2012, b. ISCCP cloudiness (1984–2008), page 3:-

      “It is noted again that the ISCCP lower-troposphere cloud data may not be sufficiently
      reliable to detect GCR–cloud correlations”

      AR5 missed that.

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 16, 2012 at 11:08 am said:

      >”CRI is now space era high”

      Ap Index, Neutrons and Climate. Guest post by David Archibald

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/ap-index-neutrons-and-climate/

      Figure 3: Neutron Counts over Solar Cycles 20 [1964] to 24

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/image_thumb25.png?w=966&h=633

  13. The guys at Hot Tooic managed to scare off Dave Frame because he wasn’t alarmist enough, Jo Nova bags him because he is too alarmist and apparently misrepresents model performance

    I’m not surprised that climate scientists don’t want to engage in blog discussions

    • Richard C (NZ) on December 17, 2012 at 11:21 am said:

      Dave Frame December 15, 2012 at 12:09 am

      I think climate change is a very serious problem, and I think the biophysical impacts we would experience at (say) 4C would clearly be very disruptive to many societies. And I believe climate policy is necessary to make sure warming doesn’t get that high. I’d have thought both of these were obvious.
      It’s an obvious fact that there is a range of expert opinion on climate change – it ranges from the very alarmed to the comparatively optimistic. I think that spread has value, and I think any responsible portrayal of climate change builds that spread in (since it, too, is a component of risk).

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/stuff-and-nonsense-ministerial-condescension-and-media-fossil-fools/#comment-35946

      # # #

      Not what I’d describe as middle-of-the-road even though he acknowledges the range of expert opinion. Meanwhile Dave didn’t show up at JN which was a pity because it would have made an interesting discussion if he had addressed criticism of F&S12. I linked to HT in case someone wanted to take him to task directly but no-one from JN did. That was second last comment, interest was immediately diverted once the AR5 leak got going.

      The issue remains though – models vs observations. Modelers (those whose simulations are rubbish) have a case to answer (why is your simulation rubbish?) and climate scientists, modelers and statisticians should have all the answers when they advance papers that appear to justify ensemble averages (what a crock) because it is inevitable that those papers will be dissected remorselessly.

      The issue can be simplified simply by discarding all previous work (we now have CMIP5, why look at FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4?) and further discarding any run that doesn’t mimic the 21st century inflexion in GAT. That leaves only about 4 model configurations to scrutinize and the questions to ask are: firstly a) are those model configurations right for valid reasons? and b) will the configurations passing a) stand the test of time where all real drivers take effect irrespective of IPCC consideration?

      b) will probably be answered between now and next model intercomparison (CMIP6).

    • DF was being vilified not because he was trying to be a scientist (despite criticisms here and at JN) but because he wasn’t screaming from the rooftops that the end is nigh.

      Bill had the temerity to claim that DF didn’t know the first thing about political campaigning, whilst seemingly losing sight of the fact that it is not the job of a scientist to be a political activist

  14. Jim Mck on December 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm said:

    Lots of good holiday reading here.

    Quick scan of the sea level section should mean that a number of Councils can pull back on some of their plans.

  15. Another nice graph from Anthony, via the AR5 draft, seems to put the dampener on methane alarm,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/17/another-example-of-clear-failure-of-ipcc-models-to-predict-reality-in-the-ar5-draft/

    Maybe we don’t need to shoot our cows after all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation