What are the implications of the recent leak of the second draft of the next IPCC report?

Question

If you're not aware of this, please Google the following where you will find a wide variety of opinions: ipcc draft leak

I'm sure this will trigger a flurry of questions from all angles. So I'll start by asking which aspects do you think are important or unimportant?

Answer 1

Clever move, Mike. Suggesting that we just "Google" the information will result in Anthony Watts' blog or to other denial industry blogs that link back to Anthony Watts' blog as their "source". I had performed "Google" searches for myself yesterday.



So, since nearly all "hits" that a Google search will return will result in coming back to Anthony Watts' blog (anyone is welcome to test this for themself), then why not just use Anthony Watts' blog for this discussion? - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/



Now, I have some questions and comments on this:



1. Where did Little Anthony find that graph? Just where did the graph originate from?



2. Then Anthony tells us to ignore the gray bars in the graph "because they flubbed the definition of them". Why does he not tell us what the "flub" is? Did I miss his telling us what the "flub" is? Help me out here. Show me where Anthony explains the "flub", please. Who are "they"? Much as with you, Anthony never says who "they" are.



3. Then he polls his faithful followers. Guess how that went. Can you guess? Did you take the poll yourself?



4. The "poll" gives only three choices. Why was not one of the choices, "within the model range"?



5. Here is something else that is the document - "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 (Total Solar Irradiance) 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."



6. Or, this - "Over the last 15 years, CO2 has clearly been the dominant contributor to the increase in RF (Radiative Forcing) from the WMGHG (Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases), with RF of CO2 having an average growth rate slightly less than 0.3 (0.27 ± 0.03) W m–2 per decade."



7. Or, this - "RF from the well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHG) has increased by 0.20 ± 0.02 W m–2 (8%) since AR4 (2005) due to increased concentrations. The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 ± 0.28 W m–2. Of the 0.20 W m–23 increase since AR4, 0.01 W m–2 is due to updates in the RF calculations and the rest due to concentration changes, mainly from increases in CO2. The industrial era RF for CO2 alone is 1.82 ± 0.18 W m–2 and is virtually certain the strongest component causing a positive RF since 1750. Over the last 15 years, CO2 has clearly been the dominant contributor to the increase in RF from the WMGHG, with RF of CO2 having an average growth rate slightly less than 0.3 (0.27 ± 0.03) W m–2 per decade."



RF = Radiative Forcing

AF = Adjusted Forcing = Change in net irradiance at the TOA (Top of the Atmosphere) after allowing for atmospheric temperatures, water vapor, clouds and land albedo to adjust, but with all or a portion of surface conditions unchanged.



Don't you and Little Anthony have some more "splainin" to do besides what has already not been fully explained?



Added******



I did find the graph that Anthony Watts is using. A friend of my, a claimed "skeptic", gave me the link to the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft. Chapter 1, Page 39 - http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf



Added Part2*****



Ottawa Mike - "For anyone who want to be shielded from differing world views, I'll suggest this search on behalf of John: ipcc draft leak -watts" - This is excellent advice Mike. Why did you not suggest this up front? You only said to do a "Google" search with no attributes. Also, Watts does not offer any information. Watts only offers claims that he cannot support. Now, if this is the different world view you seek, go for it!



Ottawa Mike - "Oops, I see there are other skeptic blogs that might link back to Watt's. Maybe John would be kind enough to expand that search term to more thoroughly shield you. Maybe something like: ipcc draft leak -watts -"the unwashed" -heathens -heretics" - LOL! I enjoyed that one Mike. I appreciate a good sense of humor. You may also want to include these as well? -denial industry -denial industry puppets -junk science -psuedo-science -unsubstantiated claims -misdirections -misinformation :-) ...... Hmmmm, I will have to try this and see if I can garner any returns at all. LOL



Added Part3******

ROTFLMAO - I will never say that you do not have an excellent sense of humor, MIke. Please, slap me if I do say different than this. LOL I am enjoying our exchanges more and more.

Answer 2

Hi Mike from Ottawa It's my belief that trying to explain to people climate change through the chemical processes has FAILED. Only when the explanation comes through the magnetic processes will the TRUTH be unveiled If the IPCC doesn't address this communication and remote sensing problem and the connection to climate change they will never have public support. Here's only one of my concerns that SKS and WATT have not addressed and run and hide when ever it is brought up http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/5/2/3 Take a look at the transequateral com's pathway and the heat and pressure changes that are created 24/7 day and night. When I emailed Anthony with this info he flat out denied that man can create jet stream changes even when faced with the evidence http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/PDF/angeo-16-1212-1998.pdf I get the same from SKS nothing but denial So I see them tared with the same brush, the same as I see our politics is 2 sides playing good cop bad cop to achieve the same outcome (distraction) With all the information available to the IPCC they can NO longer neglect the impact or com,s and remote sensing has on the atmosphere Once climate change is explained through the magnetic process people will see how atmospheric heaters can be used in weather modification . Cheers

Answer 3

OK, so Rawls releases a draft of the strongest report in support of AGW theory ever made by the IPCC because, he says, it contains contradicting “game-changing” scientific evidence. The question is: Is this any different from every other exaggerated false claim based on ignorance and/or lies that Deniers use?



There is nothing new or interesting in the fact that the IPCC report does not contain “game-changing” evidence as Rawls claims . However, Rawls' release of the document might, itself, be “game-changing” in terms of the credibility of Deniers and the arguments they use..



One of the major categories of accusations involves the reluctance / refusal of climate scientists to consider any evidence or possible explanation for global warming other than atmospheric CO2 caused by industrialization. Although the IPCC report does not find evidence for or conclude that solar activity – via a GCR-cloud connection – is the primary cause of global warming, the fact that the GCR-cloud hypothesis was considered, evaluated, and included in the IPCC report proves that the Denier lies about how climate scientists conduct research are – well – lies.



Not only does Rawls show that climate scientists consider alternative explanations, he shows that they even consider possibilities that are scientifically marginal or fringe – including something as goofy as the GCR-cloud model.



======



daddeo01905 ---



What we found out is that you didn't bother to check out what Mike is talking about - preserving your intellectual virginity by continuing to practice knowledge abstinence.

Answer 4

it's likely to be a circus with denier blogs trying to extract one or two lines of hundreds of pages of reports to prove their point. If most people would actually read the report rather than get the 5 second soundbites from FOX or WUWT, they would realize the severity of AGW.



WUWT can't make his mind up, some days it's the urban heat island, including in Antarctica, now it's cosmic rays. Anything but what the physics actually says.

Answer 5

I think the most important aspect of it is that one of the reviewers, who is also a 'skeptic' blogger, found it fit to post the entire taken-out-of-context cherry-picked statement that he did in a lame attempt to cast doubt on the process. They are claiming that the IPCC finally acknowledges that the warming is due to fluctuations in cosmic rays and clouds when, in reality, the full context stated no such thing. When the final report is released and the full context of the piece is looked at expect conspiracy theorists to state something concerning a cover up. I'm sure we both know that is what is going to happen.



http://climatecrocks.com/2012/12/14/deniers-reach-for-cherry-come-up-with-pits/



http://youtu.be/RffPSrRpq_g

Answer 6

The leak itself is unimportant as it would be made public eventually. The significant aspect is firming up that the sun is not causing GW, something IPCC has believed all along



Covered quite well here http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1776

Answer 7

1. It is so incredibly stupid to call this "leaked." I've got a copy of the AR5 attached to an email in my inbox because I signed up to be a reviewer. I could have sent it to anyone and I was at not point encouraged or sworn to some kind of privacy over the draft.



2. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT!!! AR5 is subjected to "public" peer review. Why doesn't Captain Whiz-bang over at the blog that you frequent provide an itemized counter to the current draft? Maybe because he/she/it doesn't actually have a legitimate argument other than to scream conspiracy.

Answer 8

We found out that IPCC will now stand for International Planetary Control Conspiracy.