8 thoughts on “Anybody seen the IPCC on the road to Damascus ?”

1. for laymen like me – well laywoman actually – James Delingpole has a post> Like most of his posts it’s short. Not for him the delights of word numbers better suited to the judiciary trying to explain to readers exactly what it all means. And it’s pithy, well a bit like him actually.
   So I’ll just copy it over in full

   Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in “climate change” than the scientific “consensus” has previously been prepared to concede.

   Here’s the killer admission:

   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.

   As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer:

   The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

   Over to you greentards. I look forward to reading your extravagant apologias as to why this is a story of no significance and that it’s business as usual for the great Climate Change Ponzi scheme.

2. There is a strong cloud – temperature relationship in the Australian temperature data.

   www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html

   I tend to toward aerosols as a more significant factor than GCRs. In the article above (written by me incidentally), I don’t mention aerosols from vehicles, which I now think a significant factor.

3. Philip Bradley:

   Watch the definitions, you might think that GCR has something to with cosmic rays, but in the rather weird world of the IPCC it might mean Great Cash Resource or similar.

   Warwick:

   The comments in the report about adaption echo those of Bjørn Lomborg in 2002 which got him excommunicated if not exorcised. 2 of the references above are around the same date, so it would appear that the IPCC ‘scientists’ are 11 years behind the times. They will probably realise the sun has gone quiet around 2018, and by 2029 connect that with the 5 periods of cooling/cold in the last 1,000 years which occurred at the same time as the sun was quiet. By then they will have retired.

   Whether that will stop the international junkets is doubtful. Too many snouts like it.

4. The IPCC-DRAFT (2012), AR5, Supplement for Policymaker says:
   _p.4/Line33__Largest warming is found near the sea surface (>0.1°C per decade in the upper 75 m),
   _p.4/Line40__Warming of the ocean accounts for more than 90% of the extra energy stored by the Earth between 1971 and 2010.

   What do they think is the impact of merchant, navy, fishing vessels on the sea surface layer down to about a dozen meters? Presumably significant if one would pay attention to the matter! Discussed at: Discussed: HERE

5. The IPCC is in chaos because their “concept” of the physics of planetary atmospheres is seriously flawed. For example, they cannot possibly use their “School of Thought” to explain Venus surface temperatures, where the surface receives less than 10% of the insolation reaching Earth’s surface.

   The small amount of solar energy absorbed by the Venus surface would very easily exit the surface the next night by conduction (diffusion) and radiation. Then, when this small amount of energy is back in the atmosphere there is plenty of carbon dioxide to radiate it away. There is absolutely no possible way by which such energy would be trapped in the surface and somehow add hundreds of degrees. The problem is, if you follow the “First School of Thought” (the IPCC bluff) then you are at a complete loss to explain Venus temperatures, because, if you think like the IPCC it is because you have been subjected to Ignorant Promulgation of Chaotic Consensus.” You need a paradigm shift to the “Second School of Thinking” in my paper.

   Please respond to this comment on another thread..

   Doug Cotton
   Sydney

6. I think what’s going on with AR5 is a breakdown in “message control”.

   For 20 years there has been a tight “directing circle” (the phrase is David Henderson’s) steering IPCC reports. But time, retirements, Climategate, the IAC inquiry and the sheer proliferation of climate science have taken their toll on this cabal of fixers.

   The result is cracks in the chitinous carapace of the IPCC “line”. Slivers of science are now re-entering the IPCC through these cracks. Examples:

   – this one, where the likelihood of indirect solar effects is admitted
   – the comparison of actual temperatures with former IPCC projections, showing that all the projections were too high. No doubt steps will be taken to obscure this in the final version, but it’s already out.
   – some slightly more sensible estimates on aerosols, reducing their cooling effect from AR4.

   All three examples point in the same direction: IPCC models overestimate the effect of greenhouse gases, and underestimate the effects of everything else. This is not yet admitted in the citadel of IPCC alarm, where a global hypocaust is still confidently predicted for the year 2100. But the ramparts are crumbling and there are no longer enough diehards to go out and patch them up.

7. A brilliant, must-see and enjoy IPCC chart animation at Anthony Watts.

8. If anyone wishes to ask questions about my paper, or if you believe you have an alternative explanation for the Venus surface temperature, please post your question or response below this post as I wish to keep all discussion on the one thread. There is also discussion there regarding today’s article on PSI which I did not write myself, by the way.