IPCC AR5 Panel Drafts Leaked to Public! Join the Comments

IPCC AR5 Panel Drafts Leaked to Public! Join the Comments

Almost anyone can be a "Reviewer"of drafts of the various panels that contribute to the final product of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One such volunteer reviewer, Alec Rawls, an avowed critic and supporter for inclusion of the effects of solar radiation and clouds into the analysis, has published all of the preliminary drafts to a website: www.stopgreensuicide.com...

Mr. Rawls explains his motivation thusly:

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 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.

The story came to light in the N.Y.T. climate blogger Alex Revkin’s most recent publication.

A WikiLeaks-style Web dump of drafts of the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides fresh evidence that the organization’s policies and procedures are a terrible fit for an era in which transparency will increasingly be enforced on organizations working on consequential energy and environmental issues.

Leak of Climate Panel Drafts Speaks to Need for New Process

Regardless of whether you believe man is the driving force of a changing climate, that such changes will be beneficial or deadly, or whether you ar the ultimate skeptic of change as well as man’s involvement, No “Outsider” Has Ever Had This Opportunity Before!

Will you participate?

Will you pick and choose among topics (“everything from the quality of climate models to measurements of sea level rise and Arctic ice loss”), or focus on a single issue?

The links are great jumping-off points, offering insights into the motivations and potential motivations of those involved, and you should take a good look at them.
However, if you would rather look into each draft/topic individually, on your own, here they are:

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

I know I’ll be spending a lot of time looking into various topics myself, with a somewhat skeptical mind as I go along.

Good luck.

jw

Darn the website is shut down for some reason... maybe too much website traffic.

Im interested in what "Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols " has to say

quick google search it before it goes to never land
ok here a other site
dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...


and here
wattsupwiththat.com...


and here
www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch...


Sorry all dead link

If one were to read the various published stories of the mainstream press on this topic,you could be led to beleive that the Second Order Drafts 1st Workin Group of the AR5 support the conclusion of the Executive Summary that AGW is virtually certain,

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In fact, Ckapter 7 recognizes, for the 1st time, that solar radiative forcing plays a "significant" role in any recently observed warming!

Of course, the MSM authors merely parrot the Executive Summary, which does not, actually, lead to the "certainty" conclusion; although that is clearly the impression they (and the IPCC) wish to convey.

If one were to actually READ the leaked Chapters, one would find that the draft AR5 significantly departs from the AR4 premise that man must be the sole/major cause of climate warming, since it can’t be attributed to Total Solar Irradiance.

In fact, the Chapter 7 authors specifically state:
“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. ”
(page 7-43, lines 1-5)
Chapter7

The primary leaker, Alec Rawls, explains:

“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.

The AR4 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.

[T]he Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

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.”

www.stopgreensuicide.com...

Let the Alarmists deny!

jw

Hopefully this will get out and people will finally see that they have been duped! The U.S. government alone spends billions per year just trying to prove man-made global warming, not to mention the tens of billions trying to stop it. This is great news for people who know the truth!

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American

Unfortunately, the IPCC's lies about transparency will be accepted, if not praised, by those willing to go along with or further the scam.
The IPCC issued its response to the leaks with a simple reminder that no matter who reviews or how many reviews precede the AR5, iot will add and change content as it sees fit, with no outside reviews or oversight.

The unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion because the text will necessarily change in some respects once all the review comments have been addressed. 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). The text that has been posted is thus not the final report.

www.ipcc.ch...

To see better what the IPCC is doing to create the false impression of "transparency," one need only consider the Timeline leading toward publication of the AR5:

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.

www.thegwpf.org...

The IPCC's own internal schedule makes it clear that outside review and input are cut-off BEFORE the March 15, 2013 deadline for incorporatioin of additional materials and opinions.
Review of Working Group contributions to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)

So, no matter what the reviewers said, or even what they reviewed, the IPCC has untill mid-March of next year to find and incorporate other material to further the AGW agenda.

Transparency?

jw

Here's new info from the working groups"

The IPCC has three working groups. Respectively, they examine the scientific evidence related to climate change, the impacts on the human and natural world, and possible responses.

These data sticks were distributed to Working Group 2 personnel – those writing about impacts. The blue stick is labelled “Working Group II AR5 LAM1″ and refers to their first lead author meeting held in January 2011, in Japan. The gold stick is associated with their second meeting in San Francisco nearly a year later, the green one is from their third meeting, in Buenos Aires, 10 weeks ago.

The IPCC has confirmed the authenticity of sample documents on these sticks. Today I’m making this massive collection of data, which I call the Secret Santa leak, public. Some of these documents are already online. Many others would only have been released by the IPCC years from now. Still others the IPCC intended to keep hidden forever.

I’ve created a zip file of the contents of each stick and encourage you to download your own copies. See the bottom of this post for torrent info and other download options.


Blue data stick zipped, 26 mb – www.peejeshare.com...
Gold data stick zipped, 140 mb - docs.google.com...
Green data stick zipped, 675 mb –docs.google.com...

www.thegwpf.org...