AR5 draft leaks, cheers, too young, but there is a sunshine backtaste

Posted: December 14, 2012 by tchannon in Politics

WUWT has posted with details of a leak by Alec Rawls of the AR5 WG1 draft suggesting some kind of solar effect is acknowledged.

Link to WUWT on AR5 draft entitled “IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing”

The IPCC mentioning the possibility of a GCR link to clouds is important here. Prof Nir Shaviv in his JGR paper on Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter found a large amplification by empirical study. Cloud change is likely to be proportional to solar change because otherwise our solar planetary model wouldn’t successfully hindcast a good match to the paleo reconstructions.

The inverse complimentary phenomenon of decreasing cloud cover is increased sunshine hours. Willie Soon and Doug Proctor have been on the case there.

David L. Hagen says:

Cloud change – another major “omitted variable”.
Re section: 12.4.3.5 Clouds
The declining cloud cover reported Eastman & Warren 2012 is an equally major “omitted variable”.

My proposed summary of Eastman & Warren is as follows:

“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979 to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and high levels (Eastman & Waren, 2012). Declining clouds appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1 percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). The challenge now is distinguish what portion of rising CO2 reduced clouds and what portion of natural reduction in clouds raised ocean temperatures increasing CO2.”

See: “Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Long-Term Trends, Relation to Aerosols, and Expansion of the Tropical Belt Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00280.1”

For discussion, graphs see Some confirmation of Spencer’s cloud hypothesis – it is getting less cloudy and warmer at the same time WUWT Aug 20, 2012

In his Solar Accumulation Theory, David Stockwell provides further evidence for major solar causation for warming.

The solar amplifying mechanism together with the major trend of declining cloud cover create influences that could entirely explain ALL the warming. This raises the major causation puzzle (aka “chicken and egg”) of which parameters are the cause and which the consequence.

Ben Santer et al. 2012 Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature
now acknowledge:

On average, the models analyzed … overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear…
The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes. 

See Stockwell on Santer: Climate Models are Exaggerating Warming – We Don’t Know Why and
Q: Where Do Climate Models Fail? A: Almost Everywhere

Where do the models fail?
1. Significantly warmer than reality (95% CI) in the lower troposphere at all latitudes, except for the arctic.
2. Significantly warmer than reality (95% CI) in the mid-troposphere at all latitudes, except for the possible polar regions.
3. Significant warmer that reality (95% CI) in the lower stratosphere at all latitudes, except possibly polar regions.
Answer: Everywhere except for polar regions where uncertainty is greater.

Attributing most of the global warming to fossil CO2 appears increasingly to be an “argument from ignorance” with little statistically justifiable basis once these issues are identified and quantified. Consequently “Minor anthropogenic warming” will likely be the major contender – when we can actually quantify (“about”) how much of < 50% is due to anthropogenic CO2!

Comments
  1. Doug Proctor says:

    One line, apparently, as a caveat, in one section of little importance, contradicting baseline assumptions of other sections.

    A hiccup in an athlete just after he was said to be in top form.

  2. Roger Andrews says:

    Well, if it isn’t genuine someone went to an awful lot of trouble to forge it.

    And if it is genuine then it’s deja vu all over again, only worse. Now greenhouse gases caused not just most of the warming since 1950, but more than all of it.

    “The greenhouse gas contribution to the warming from 1951–2010 is in the range between 0.6 and
    1.4°C. This is very likely greater than the total observed warming of approximately 0.6°C over the same period.”

    And as for the game-changing admissions of enhanced solar forcing, the official IPCC score since 1750 is anthropogenic 2.40 w/m2, solar 0.04 w/m2.

  3. tallbloke says:

    It’s very brave of Alec to do this, and I think he should be congratulated for his commitment to opening the process.

    What the leak shows is how little the IPCC have learned about natural variability both in the Sun, and the effects on Earth. A willful blindness to basic physics and a mountain of empirical evidence.

  4. oldbrew says:

    ‘The IPCC mentioning the possibility of a GCR link to clouds is important here’

    The GCR idea is rejected by Piers Corbyn here. He says it’s really about charged particles and there’s no 11-year signal in world temperatures.

    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=34&c=1

  5. tallbloke says:

    Oldbrew:

    The interaction of the solar wind with Earth’s magnetosphere affects the global electrical circuit (and cloud) so Piers may be right if he’s saying that is a bigger effect than GCR’s creating CCN. However, Svensmark is on the money for the big picture long term stuff in my opinion.
    https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mnras_svensmark2012.pdf

    “there’s no 11-year signal in world temperatures.”

    The signal is suppressed by the fact that big el ninos tend to occur at solar minimum, followed by la nina at solar max. However, the signal is still easily detectable in the sunspot and surface temperature record. It’s just a lot smaller than it would be if the oceans weren’t smearing the signal out with the ENSO response (which is also solar driven on longer multi-decadal timescales).

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/mean:37/detrend:0.7/offset:0.2/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/scale:0.002/mean:37/offset:-0.2

    https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ssnvstemp.png

  6. oldbrew says:

    Yes, Piers pays tribute to Svensmark & co and believes they have are on the right lines, except for the driver. He says charged particles ‘are vastly more numerous and also carry in total 300 times more energy flux despite the much higher individual energy of the relatively much much rarer Cosmic rays’.

    Interesting about the ENSO timings. I think Piers says something similar:

    ‘The Sun’s magnetic field changes direction and warming affect every cycle so in terms of the 22 year cycle world temperature peaks occur at about two years after the ODD cycle maxima (eg 2002/03) and the temperature minima appear at about two years after the EVEN cycle maxima’

  7. oldbrew says:

    Jason Kirkby of CERN discusses his research into clouds here (today).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/climate-change

    Quite a long interview, but at the end he’s still toying with cosmic rays as his main candidate for cloud variation, so IMHO he’s missing a trick (Corbyn’s ideas). However he does say:

    ‘The current understanding is that natural warming is very, very small. There’s a short-term contribution from volcanoes, which only lasts a few years. There’s also thought to be a small brightening of the sun over the course of the twentieth century. But apart from that, there’s thought to be nothing else going on — natural contribution — to climate change. On the other hand, if you look at earlier times, you do see changes in the climate that are comparable to the warming that is going on now. But we don’t know what the mechanism is. So at the very least this is a question mark. And at the very most, there could be a contribution that is just unaccounted for at the moment. Whatever it is, we don’t know what the answer is. And we have to settle it before we can really with certainty say we understand what’s going on now.’

    Are you taking that in, IPCC, Guardian readers et al?!

  8. Roger Andrews says:

    TB

    You say: “The signal is suppressed by the fact that big el ninos tend to occur at solar minimum, followed by la nina at solar max.”

    Here’s how Niños and Niñas have matched up with the solar cycle since 1960. First Niños:

    Now Niñas:

    :-)

  9. oldbrew says:

    The Guardian is already trying to kick all this into the long grass by drafting in a ‘Skeptical Science’ pundit.

    “Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report”
    “Climate sceptics’ claims that UN climate science panel’s AR5 report show the sun is causing global warming don’t stack up”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report?fb=native

    The Jason Kirkby feature in the same newspaper obviously passed the writer by.