Draft AR5 Fifth IPCC Assessment Report leaked!

[marchesarosa]

IPCC AR5 2nd draft (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report) leaked!

Claimed to contain admission of enhanced solar forcing.

Alec Rawles writes,

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:


Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
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 8 Supplement
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 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary


Read the full article on WUWT here
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

The gist of Alex's case for the re-instatement of Solar forcing to the prime forcing of global climate is here

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.

more.......

[alancalverd]

The very first IPCC report admitted that they had no idea of how to deal with atmospheric water, which was clearly the primary determinant of surface temperature, so they ignored it.

Now my old navigation instructor began his first lecture with "Always start from where you are. Then you won't get lost before you take off." And so it is (or rather, isn't) with IPCC, burning fuel and rushing about the sky with absolutely no idea of where they are or where they are going because they set off in ignorance and navigated by prejudice.

And yet again, an IPCC report seems to have been written from the conclusions to the evidence, with the crew arguing all the way....

I have to admit to a certain scepticism. One of the first co-chairman of IPCC began his presentation to a local group with "I am a committed Christian...." Alarm bells rang in my head - this bloke thinks he knows the answer before you have asked the question. And so it has been, ever since.

[marchesarosa]

Yes, Sir John Houghton,Mr Calverd! First Chairman off the IPCC and a Chief Scientific advisor to the HM Govt. The British Establilshment were and still are up to their necks in the IPCC's foregone conclusions. The IPCC reports have all definitely been compiled from the conclusions backwards!


A large “all in one” RAR file of the entire Second Order Draft of the IPCC's AR5 Report has been created by a reader “hippo”

Link to the entire set of documents, as single RAR archive:
www.filedropper.com/wwwstopgreensuicidecom

then click on "Download this File"


Another first for the sceptical blogosphere!

[marchesarosa]

Comments here, too, on Bishop Hill
bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/13/ar5-second-order-draft-leaked.html#comments

[marchesarosa]

from Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill

Dec 15, 2012

After the leak of the AR5 Second Order Draft, initial attention was directed at the IPCC's partial retreat on the solar influence on climate. However, the focus seems to have shifted overnight to weather extremes, with Prof Roger Pielke Jr tweeting up a storm.

1/2 Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: "generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record"

2/2 con't ...on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)

As Ryan Maue responded, the IPCC might have better expressed this as "we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records"

Pielke continues..

IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific lit

Of course IPCC AR5 is a draft but the scientific literature it is reporting is available for all to see, and AR5 has it presented accurately

I have been critical of past IPCC assessments on the science of extremes. But after SREX and now IPCC AR5 SOD the IPCC is 2 for 2. Nice job!

So what happens now to those whose views on extremes run counter to IPCC? Are they now the new "deniers"? Somehow I doubt it ;-)

However, it's not all good news. Richard Tol notes that the WG2 first order draft was "unreconstituted alarmism". We will be kept busy.

[marchesarosa]

Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor
Posted on December 14, 2012

New global water vapor findings contradict second draft of IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5)

Guest post by Forrest M. Mims III
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

[marchesarosa]

This is not the entire IPCC report. Rather, these are Working Group 1 chapters only. Considered the “hard science” portion of the report, these chapters are the ones that people with a scientific orientation find most interesting and consider most important.

However, IPCC Working Group 2 personnel are currently assembling an additional 30 chapters. Working Group 3′s contribution will consist of 16 more.... Economist Richard Tol, who is one of the coordinating lead authors of Working Group 2′s Chapter 10, posted the entire draft of that chapter on his blog back in March.

[marchesarosa]

From Donna Laframboise

IPCC Declares Its Intent to Circumvent Expert Reviewers

December 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Hundreds of souls have volunteered to serve as IPCC expert reviewers. But the review process lacks integrity – and the system is being gamed.


Yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued an official statement regarding the leak of draft versions of 14 chapters of its still-in-progress climate report.

The chapters have twice been examined by a small army of external expert reviewers. These fresh pairs of eyes are supposed to be one of the IPCC’s virtues – one of the reasons we can all feel confident about the quality of its reports.

Nevertheless, the statement contained this startling sentence: "It should also be noted that the cut-off date for peer-reviewed published literature to be included and assessed in the final draft lies in the future." (15 March 2013).

Excuse me? What is the point of enlisting hundreds of people to help you catch errors if you intend to keep inserting new material months after they’ve exited the stage?

Here’s the timeline:
IPCC personnel wrote the first draft of these leaked 14 chapters (all of which belong to its Working Group 1 section) back in 2011.
The draft was circulated. External expert reviewers had eight weeks to submit comments about the draft, the cutoff date being February 10, 2012 (see the schedule on this PDF).
IPCC personnel presumably read all of the comments that were submitted and then wrote the second draft.
Once again it was distributed to the expert reviewers, and once again there was a deadline. That date, November 30, 2012 has now come and gone.

According to yesterday’s statement, the IPCC received 31,000 comments from 800 people who volunteered to serve as external reviewers during round two. It’s now clear that those people should have spent their time reading a novel. Because the IPCC process lacks integrity. Because the system is being gamed. Because the IPCC has publicly declared that this is in fact, what’s going on.

It doesn’t matter how carefully those 800 people examined the IPCC’s text. It doesn’t matter how long they laboured over their comments. The IPCC reserves the right to keep changing the substance of the report. The external reviewers will see none of this new material. They will be given no opportunity to critique it. Let no one dare say that the final report can be relied on because 800 external expert reviewers gave it their blessing. Those reviewers can only claim to have seen some early versions. Whatever the final version says will be determined behind closed doors by the IPCC’s small, carefully selected sub-group of individuals.

In 2009 Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, delivered a speech at the University of Copenhagen. Among other things, he encouraged his audience to believe that IPCC reports are thoroughly vetted by thousands of independent souls. According to a news article, during the Q&A session a member of the audience accused him of using a graph that was statistically unsound. The news article says that Pachauri:
refutes the accusation by arguing that everything he says is based on IPCC’s scientific experts reviews. “How can all the 2500 scientific reviewers lie?…” he thunders, glowering.

How can all of those 2,500 reviewers lie? The answer is obvious. They didn’t lie. Instead, it’s quite possible that none of them even saw his graph – that it was slipped in after-the-fact. Yesterday’s statement abolishes all doubt. The IPCC’s expert reviewers are window dressing.

[alancalverd]

I think the very title gives it away. Intergovernmental. Politics, not science. So policy-based evidencemaking is inevitable.

[marchesarosa]

by Donna Laframboise

IPCC officials are telling Working Group 2 authors about scientific papers that haven’t been written yet. These papers will appear in a special edition of a journal guest-edited by an activist scientist.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says it conducts no research of its own. It says it merely surveys the already-available scientific literature on climate change and figures out what it all means. But that’s not what actually happens.

In 2010 an IPCC insider told InterAcademy Council investigators that scientists who wish to include certain information in IPCC reports sometimes manufacture made-to-order journal articles. Here’s the quote:

Governments want the chapter to cover questions of current relevance for which there [is] often “grey literature” but little peer reviewed literature…An approach that has been used in such cases is that lead authors try to have the material published in peer reviewed journals while they are drafting the IPCC chapter so that the published or in press article can be cited in the final draft of the IPCC chapter.

In my book about the IPCC I say:

This is called cheating. And apparently it’s an open secret that such things go on.

I point out that even though a particular issue of the journal Climatic Change had yet to be published, 16 of its 21 articles were cited in the IPCC’s last major report. Indeed, that issue of the journal appears to have been assembled by IPCC personnel expressly so that they could say a range of things that hadn’t been established in the scientific literature (see IPCC Cites an Unpublished Journal 39 Times nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/05/13/ipcc-cites-an-unpublished-journal-39-times/ ).

Something suspiciously similar is happening once again. And IPCC officials appear to be condoning it.

When lead authors for the IPCC’s Working Group 2 met in Buenos Aires in late October of this year, each of them received an information package that included a document titled Special Issue on ISI-MIP results. It alerts them to an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal.

According to the IPCC document, some of the papers that will appear there will discuss results generated by the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. But the document also suggests that papers on topics such as extreme events, water supply, and CO2 fertilization will also be included.

IPCC officials know that the papers to be published in that issue of the PNAS have not been written yet. Their own document says the submission deadline isn’t until January 31, 2013.

So why is the IPCC giving its authors this kind of heads-up? Is it clairvoyant? Does it already know that these papers will be so ground-breaking the IPCC won’t be able to ignore them?

Perhaps. Or perhaps IPCC officials are telling authors where to look for material that fills inconvenient gaps in their narrative.

The IPCC document notes that the guest editor of this special PNAS issue will be Hans Joachim (John) Schellnhuber. If one were to make a list of highly politicized, activist scientists this gent would be near the top.

[marchesarosa]

Mike Haseler adds

"This is a typical ploy that occurred at Wikipedia. Whenever the warmists (IPCC) editors lost the argument and some real sciene got in, they would just get another paper written to rewrite the science.

It was unbelievably corrupt. Imagine a court case, where the prosecution could just rewrite the law if the defence ever found a way to defend their innocent client."