Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A rogue reviewer posted a draft this week of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's next report, in a bid to promote climate change denial.
Instead the draft reaffirms humanity's starring role in global warming, which, along with sea level rise is now "unequivocal.” Also human caused CO2 increases are now "virtually certain" to be responsible for trapping extra heat. And it is "extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s."
In other words, we're well on our way towards global warming of 2 degrees Celsius or more by 2050, if not sooner. After all, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are likely to hit 400 parts-per-million this coming spring or next.
The final draft isn't due until next fall and the leak highlights a need to consider updating the IPCC process. Global warming no longer needs confirmation—instead the world needs solutions to climate change's challenges. After all, "many aspects of climate change will persist for centuries even if concentrations of greenhouse gases are stabilized.”
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentYou are disgusting, "littleredtop". You have no business posting on this article; you willfully deny obvious observational facts. Go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislittleredtop: You may want to read up a little before jumping to conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- - - - - - -
"The documents were posted Thursday at Stopgreensuicide.com, a Web site launched by Alec Rawls, a passionate foe of restrictions on greenhouse gases."
---Andrew Revkin at the NYT, originally 12/13/12.
- - - - - - -
These documents were the focus of quite a bit of denier chest-beating in online responses to a couple recent Scientific American articles. You can't have it both ways, or, well, actually, if you're not worried too much about accuracy, you CAN have it both ways. Why not? It would hardly be the first time.
Actually, if you read littleredtop's comment as satire, it's pretty brilliant. I'm thinking Colin Powell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAl, hmmm, good point. OK, littleredtop, 'fess up, satire or not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBronze and iron age humans were not industrialized; They lacked factories, power plants, an understanding of electricity, and their only reason to burn coal would be to forge metals in small amounts by comparison to human civilization during and after the industrial revolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal population was also orders of magnitude lower, and if 1.5m bodies were found in an area, that's 1.5m people who died over the entire duration of time that it was inhabited, not 1.5m alive at one time. Considering how many generations have lived and died since the bronze age, this is not unexpected for areas which were for quite some time, fertile, earlier in human history.
(Note: I said forge metals, but was referring to smelting and forging in general. Wikipedia has entries on forging and smelting if you're curious.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA leaked report? Really, the IPCC and the warmists are now spy agencies with secret agendas? What a joke, you cant leak something already known to be believed by these people. Now if the IPCC leaked a report that admitted they dont know anything or evil humans are not the problem, then maybe you have something. A leaked report from one of the sensible groups who are questioning the dogma of warmists and their leaked report agreed with the dogma, then mayb you have something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA report from the IPCC with their typical claims human caused global warming is equivocally proven is what we expect, not even sure why they bother to hide it.
Yes the statistically calculated 11 millimeters rise in sea levels, the statistically calculated global temp has risen against the equally statistically calulated so called normal global temperature and of course the thousanth of a percent of CO2 increase was caused by humans and absolutely no other source or combination of sources and is the reason why somehow magically all humans will die from famine and war.
Oh stop it Patty. You are being boring yet again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it comes to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it would seem that it is not just garbage in and garbage out but garbage in the middle as well. A garbage sandwich from the bun to the center.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no reasoning with the climate deniers who are entirely delusional. These are paranoid, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt "people"...if you could call such individuals people. For people that would consciously deny, obstruct, and spread lies about the ever accelerating threat of climate change are IMMORAL and ANTI HUMAN. Such individuals have not yet risen to the human level yet they are completely lacking in reason, empathy, and compassion. Time to simply push the climate deniers aside and take firm action. The responsible good people far outnumber the irresponsible, evil climate deniers like littleredtop above. That'r right...ALL CLIMATE DENIERS ARE NOTHING BUT IMMORAL SUB HUMAN LIARS and should not be given the time of day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate Deniers = Immoral, Sub-human liars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're a propaganda drunk damn fool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Prideseren ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC is a synthesis of PUBLISHED peer reviewed literature. In other words, they are synthesizing and summarizing the science already in the public sphere. There is nothing secret about those findings. Anyone can sign on to the IPCC to review the drafts.
Reviewer Registration is open for the Working Group I second order draft contribution:
http://igfagcr.org/index.php/bf-annoucements-blog/75-expert-review-ipcc-wgi-ar5-sod
That you are commenting out of self imposed ignorance of the actual facts is your crowning achievement in vying for the crown of Mr. Ignoramus.
This leak has certainly been an embarrassment to the IPCC, coming on the heels of the Doha conference where the world was assured that AR5 would scare the daylights out of those sitting on the fence of the global warming issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that language acknowledging the role of GCR added to chapter 7 from the Second Order draft will disappear, as will certain language in Chapter 8. However, Mr. Rawls did the scientific world a huge favor by forcing some transparency into the IPCC process which has been cloaked in secrecy to date.
It is inevitable that Mr. Biello and other UN shills would defend the draft conclusions of AR5, despite the inclusion of skeptical conclusions in Chapter 7. Biello did not take on the very good points raised in the Second Order draft leaked by Mr. Rawls. Instead, Mr. Biello simply reiterates the report conclusion, without addressing possibly contradictory evidence stated in the draft report itself.
I guess that Mr. Biello is assuming that politically-correct language will be substituted into Chapter 7 before the final IPCC document is released as an instrument of Public Policy.
@Mkelter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are repeating fraudulent claim. Why is it you clowns can not be bothered to read the articles you are commenting on?
From the article:
"Instead the draft reaffirms humanity's starring role in global warming, which, along with sea level rise is now "unequivocal.” Also human caused CO2 increases are now "virtually certain" to be responsible for trapping extra heat. And it is "extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s."
Why is it that you people swallow crude propaganda with such credulity?
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect, sir, the issues identified in AP5 by Mr. Rawls are valid issues that Mr. Biello responded in a weak and unsubstantiated manner--similar to the unsubstantiated response provided in Chapter 8 of AP5. Scientists who study the effects of GCR on the earth's climate deserve a voice in the IPCC process, but have been denied this voice due to the less-than-transparent peer-review process of the IPCC.
Mr. Rawls' leak of the second draft of AP5 could allow additional peer-reviewed science to help fill the massive predictive "holes" that seem prevalent in the IPCC "science".
@Mkeltte,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisau contraire, dear sir. The only issue raised in this manufactured scandal is Mr. Rawls incompetence or malfeasance in misrepresenting a draft report.
Your culpability is the willingness of you and others like you to swallow said claims without a moments skepticism.
Allow me to demonstrate:
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; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong arguement against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change."
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf
That section is only a few paragraphs down from the highly quotes that Mr. Rawls has chosen to hyperventilate over.
But I am not finished. Looking over the other portions of the draft I see other confirmatory readings of my interpretation of this draft report:
Let us begin with the chapter titled: Summary for Policy Makers:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf
From the Introdcution:
"The evidence that formed the basis for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report ... has further strengthened."
And from the same chapter:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf
"3. Drivers of Climate Change
Globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the atmospheric
composition, and changes in surface conditions. Its relative contribution has further increased since the
1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers. CO2 concentrations and rates of increase are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years and at least 20,000 years, respectively. Other drivers also influence climate on global and particularly regional scales."
And not a word about solar cycle or galactic cosmic rays. Funny that.
Allow to reiterate my earlier accusation. Mr. Rawls is either an incompetent ideologue or a motivated dissembler of reality. Take your pick, sir
@ MKkelter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I told an earlier poster: Their is no secret process. Anyone can sign up to be a reviewer. In an earlier post I gave a link to the web page that allows you to sign up.
Again, the question: In the light of these incontrovertible facts, how is it that you allowed yourself to be duped?
@littleredtop, belief in a global conspiracy is indicative of mental illness. You need to address your paranoid delusions. We can't help you if you are unwilling to help yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@priddseren, you are an established liar. You have no credibility here. Please crawl back under your rock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe wouldn’t be talking about this had Mr. Rawls NOT ripped the Second Order Draft of AR5 from the shrouds of IPCC secrecy. Now there can be some real discussion before the report is foisted upon the public as Policy.
The reason we should be looking before leaping into the IPCC conclusions is that earlier conclusions and predictions from the IPCC have been so incredibly inaccurate. Check out FIGURE 1.4 of AR5. This IPCC chart shows the huge discrepancy between real world temperature anomalies and the earlier IPCC predictions. Since the beginning of the 21st century the “average” observed anomaly has trended below the bottom of the most conservative IPCC range.
Much research on GCR influence was excluded in the IPCC process. Below is a short reading list of what was banned from the report, much in the same manner that Lord Mockton was banned from the Doha Conference:
Shaviv, N. J., ( 2005). "On Climate Response to Changes in the Cosmic Ray Flux and Radiative Budget", JGR-Space, vol. 110, A08105.’
Scafetta, N., West, B.J. (2006). Phenomenological Solar Signature in 400 years of Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere Temperature Record”, GRL.
SOLANKI,S. K. and Fligge, M. 1998. Solar irradiance since 1874 revisited. Geophysical Research Letters, 25: 341-344.
SOLANKI, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M. and Beer, J. 2005. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years. Nature 436: 174 (14 July 2005) doi: 10.1038/436174b
Dergachev, V.A., Dmitriev, P.B., Raspopov, O.M. and Jungner, H. 2006. Cosmic ray flux variations, modulated by the solar and earth's magnetic fields, and climate changes. 1. Time interval from the present to 10-12 ka ago (the Holocene Epoch). Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya 46: 123-134.
Lockwood, M., and R. Stamper, 1999: Long-term drift of the coronal source magnetic flux and the total solar irradiance. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2461-2464.
Perry, C.A., Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays ..., J. Adv. Space Res. (2007), doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.02.079
Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375.
These researchers conclude that numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations.
A bit surprised about this summary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo mention of figure 1.4, showing that temperature rise has been much smaller than expected:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png?w=640&h=548
No mention of massive reduction of aerosol cooling, neccessitating the conclusion, that climate sensitivity is much lower than presumed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-its-new-aerosol-estimates/
No mention of the acknowledgement of the existence of a solar amplifier (though not of an explicit mechanism):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/
No mention of IPCC's almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods