‘Earth observations and moist processes’

http://gewex.org/2009Conf_gewex_oral_presentations/Stephens_G11.pdf

Looks almost understandable and probably a worthwhile read (scathing of models at first glance) but perhaps should be in conjunction with Stephens et al 2012. Have to admit I’m struggling to keep up with these developments.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-of-the-ipcc-ar5-graph-shows-ipcc-analysis-methodology-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/#more-75983

Then there’s John Christy’s EPW and EPS graphs of the AR5 equivalent, EPW here:-

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

>”…defending the indefensible ….goes on as if these revelations had not happened”

Exactly, the “denier” tag appears to be pinned on the wrong faction these days. The comments are a hoot but not 100% unanimous assent I note. Much deferral to Foster and Rahmstorf but completely oblivious to the highly questionable methodology.

Hans Petter Jacobsen and John Cook do their best to bat away the solar bogeyman with help of PMOD (I assume, no source cited for the TSI composite) in Jacobsen’s case. Cook just does what Cook normally does (PMOD too). I would expect nothing else from him.

SkS links for the record:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/frame-stone-2012.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar-Cycle-Model-fails.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sun-climate-moving-opposite-directions.html

Well yes. Running into the same problem as with GCR effect detection though. The cloud datasets may not be (no where near from what I can gather) up to the task (Agee 2012).

and concludes

JC summary: The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-it.html

This was also used as a basis for Matt Ridley’s article in the WSJ

Sure is. My impression is of a battle of wills for what should be divulged vs what some would prefer to be left unsaid.

As with previous assessments, it is what is unsaid that is just as important as what is said in WGI at least. Even then, much of what is said in WGI is diluted to a virtual unsaid status so as not to impinge on the “unequivocal anthropogenic” narrative.

A major “unsaid” example is that of the citation of Agee 2012 to support dismissal of GCR on trend. But Agee cautions more than once that a GCR effect may not be detectable due to the uncertainty in cloud datasets (unsaid). Other correlations e.g. Marsh & Svensmark 2004 (unsaid, and there are others)) use different datasets and the correlation breakdown in Agee and other WGI citations is not present (unsaid).

Apparently Monckton has compiled a compendium of around 450 papers (probably gleaned from Poptech and NIPCC) that the SOD has overlooked. I suspect that a good number of those are solar-centric.

His point is that a new study on global water vapour shows no up or down trend, in contradiction of (GCM) models which assume water vapour will increase with CO2 concentrations, but this study shows that it has not. His PDF review is interesting reading – an excerpt:

ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INCLUDING MENTION OF THE NVAP-M PAPER AND ITS FIG. 4C IN AR5: Positive feedback of water vapor (enhanced evaporation due to warming induced by GHGs) is key to GCMs. This key fact is why the new NVAP-M paper should be discussed and cited in AR5. While the original NVAP work was criticized, this should be considered in light of published problems with all the major global water studies (see, for example, Trenberth, K. E.; Fusillo, J; Smith, L. Trends and variability in column-integrated water vapor. Climate Dynamics 2005, 24 (7-8), 741–758). The 2012 NVAP-M study is a significant improvement and expansion over the original study. It is also the most comprehensive, multi-sourced atmospheric water vapor study to date, for NVAP-M uses data from quality-controlled upper air radiosonde soundings; SSM/I, HIRS, AIRS satellite soundings; and GPS stations. Note that HIRS retrieves the vertical profile of water vapor over land. A timeline of instruments used for the 2012 NVAP-M paper is at ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gl/2012GL052094. In conclusion, the initial 2012 NVAP-M paper well deserves discussion and citation in AR5. The citation is: Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Janice L. Bytheway and John M. Forsythe. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L15802, 6 PP., 2012. doi:10.1029/2012GL052094. Disclaimer: I do not know and have never met any of the NVAP team. I received one brief e-mail from a member of the team in response to a question about when the 2012 paper would be published.

links: WUWT Story: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/
Reviewer comments pdf: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mims_ipcc_ar5_sod_review.pdf

http://vimeo.com/14356185

“Natural and modeled systems contain a mix of fast and slow equilibrating components. They have a crucial difference. If fast, then continued forcing at the same average level does not cause any additional warming; forcing is directly related to response. If slow, constant high levels can cause ongoing warming until equilibrium is reached. In the slow case, the forcing cannot be directly related to the response….”

In addition, page 20 (sic):-

The accumulation theory does not ignore added forcing, such as interactions between solar emanations and the Earth’s magnetic field such as modification of cloud albedo by high-energy particles Svensmark [2007]. Rather, the accumulation theory defines the basic functioning of the system, while indirect solar effects, cloud albedo variations, and aerosols only serve to change the intensity of radiative inputs to the system.

And page 31:-

Geothermal heating in the deep ocean would have the highest intrinsic gain, due to reduced losses.

On GCM’s, page 32/33 (CMIP3/AR4):-

Most GCMs differ substantially from the natural AR value, but some GCMs are better than others. Models that showed reasonable agreement were NCAR1, NCAR2, MIROC3, MRI, and MIUB. Others may be less useful as test-beds of the natural system. These results indicate a subset of models will be more realistic, and a consensus of models will give inferior results.

Ain’t THAT the truth?