# Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann completely vindicated...again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724 "2011-08-23T00:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/281 "2011-09-02T15:23:31Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Personally, I would need the actual arguments and evidence – not just assertions of conclusions. If the argument is based on a computer simulation, I would need solid evidence that the computer simulation has been tested and validated. i.e. proof that the computer simulation has made actual predictions which later turned out to be accurate and were very unlikely to have been the result of chance. Should the fact that we don’t have a completely accurate model of the Economy that can predict the Dow Jones, allow us to conclude that all people who say enforcing a carbon tax will hurt the economy are alarmists? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/282 "2011-09-02T15:40:47Z")
For the record, global warming is not some new trendy idea that came out of some climatologists trying to explain a few hot summers. I remember way back in 1984 doing a class project on the dangers of green house gasses. The theory, based on known physical science, came before the data supporting it not the other way around. I am baffled by the global warming deniers. Physics says that increased green house gasses should lead to increased global temperature. Then we observe the climate and this seems to be the case. Even if you don’t like the data you have to respect the physics. I feel that we are on a train on a foggy night, and got a radio warning saying there was a bridge out 2 miles ahead. Some time later looking ahead through the mist we see what look like twisted trestles and so like the bridge is actually out. Some recommends putting on the brakes before we hit the river, but others say that its so foggy that you really can’t be sure and so we should chug along full speed ahead. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/283 "2011-09-02T15:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Should the fact that we don’t have a completely accurate model of the Economy that can predict the Dow Jones, allow us to conclude that all people who say enforcing a carbon tax will hurt the economy are alarmists? I would say it depends on the specifics of their claim. For example, if they were to claim that a modest carbon tax would push the economy past a “tipping point” and send us into a Zimbabwe-like depression from which we would never recover, then yes I would call them alarmists. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/284 "2011-09-02T15:48:06Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I am baffled by the global warming deniers. Physics says that increased green house gasses should lead to increased global temperature. Possibly you are baffled because you have been misinformed as to the central issue in the dispute. Even Richard Lindzen - perhaps the most prominent “denier,” agrees that increased CO2 levels are likely to lead to increased global temperatures. The critical question is whether any such increases would be amplified by water vapor feedback. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/285 "2011-09-02T16:15:44Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > The critical question is whether any such increases would be amplified by water vapor feedback. Predicting future temperatures has great uncertainty, especially because, as temperatures rise, cooling via reflective aerosols (e.g. similar to [the sulfuric aerosols from volcanoes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols)) will be seen as a practical, inexpensive countermeasure. Unfortunately, high levels of CO[sub]2[/sub] lead to another problem. Dissolving CO[sub]2[/sub] in the oceans (whose future rate is unknown) is sometimes seen as part of climate change’s “solution” but instead [CO[sub]2[/sub] may do more harm in the oceans than in the atmosphere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification), with today’s oceans already showing bad ecological effects from increased acidity. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/286 "2011-09-02T16:28:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Geez, and I even said “and” (the implication is that I’m not complaining about what you replied to Greg Charles) I was saying that I was not making a point that there was a higher record, only that the UN are overwhelmingly talking about a long term warming trend. Once again, giving context to what you quoted. > > There was no goal post to move. I know; I’m asking you to provide one. If your “and” is meant to mark a switch away from the question-and-answer bit you quoted, then supply a question like he did so I can supply an answer like I did. > [@](#): > > You just hang up to imaginary positions that the UN has on the long term warming (they are not saying “might” they are saying that warming is happening) I’m not ascribing that imaginary position to 'em. You’re, like, imagining that. [QUOTE=phaemon] It is wrong to say that there has been cooling since 1998. [/QUOTE] I’m saying there has been no warming since '98, which is a distinction with a difference. [QUOTE=Greg Charles] OK, that report isn’t giving me a lot to be optimistic about. I don’t really understand what it’s showing to you … a reversal of the warming trend? A leveling off? [/QUOTE] It’s merely showing me the answer to your question about whether '05 and '10 had surpassed '98. I’m _ **not** _ saying it shows me a significant reversal of the warming trend or a significant leveling off, because I want each person making a prediction to lay out what _ **they** _ feel would show reversal or leveling off – such that I can then plug in those criteria and watch to see whether it happens or not. > [@](#): > > At some point in this thread, it was posited that if 2013 wasn’t warmer than 1998, then science would have to admit that warming … was over? Never happened? I can’t remember the exact point No, that’s just it: I want such an “exact point” spelled out by those making the predictions. _ **I’m** _ not the one who should posit that there’s something significant about 2013 – or 2018, or 2023, or whatever; I want to hear what falsification criteria gets posited by those who, y’know, posit. [QUOTE=Abe] What simple questions? With all the equivocation being produced here, it seems a stretch to use the word “simple”. I won’t pretend to follow every obscure claim that’s been flung at Gigobuster, but so far what I do glean is a trend of a few people latching on to any argument (including oft-discredited ones) that allows them to repeatedly mistake short-term weather occurrences for long-term climate trends. Perhaps a restatement of thesis might help. [/QUOTE] “What hypothetical evidence could falsify the claims made by those predicting global warming?” You say, for example, that it’s wrong to mistake short-term weather occurrences for long-term climate trends – and, in those broad terms, I agree with you. What needs to happen, over how long a time, to count as long-term rather than short-term? [QUOTE=septimus] Predicting future temperatures has great uncertainty [/QUOTE] Can we make a falsifiable prediction that compensates for that? Building in a big enough margin of error, maybe, or including a few quick if/then statements? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/287 "2011-09-02T16:51:11Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Possibly you are baffled because you have been misinformed as to the central issue in the dispute. > > Even Richard Lindzen - perhaps the most prominent “denier,” agrees that increased CO2 levels are likely to lead to increased global temperatures. > > The critical question is whether any such increases would be amplified by water vapor feedback. And they do. > **[Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works](https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm)** > > \Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to... > [@](#): > > How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000). > Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity > > The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/288 "2011-09-02T17:10:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I know; I’m asking you to provide one. If your “and” is meant to mark a switch away from the question-and-answer bit you quoted, then supply a question like he did so I can supply an answer like I did. What I did was an “I’m just saying.” that you do not want to deal with it is understood, I did not demanded anything there from you. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not ascribing that imaginary position to 'em. You’re, like, imagining that. The overwhelming context shows that the UN climate guys are referring to the big picture and the warming trend, there has been no good justification nor support to claim that they are reporting no warming, once again, you only concentrate on a few years to get a misleading result that no serious statistician supports either. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m saying there has been no warming since '98, which is a distinction with a difference. And as shown already, even by independent statisticians, it is a position designed to confuse people, and to ignore the warming trend that the UN itself is reporting then and continues to report now, when the only thing you can do is quote the same out of context quote again and again you only show the obvious, it was indeed taken out of context. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/289 "2011-09-02T17:27:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What I did was an “I’m just saying.” that you do not want to deal with it is understood, I did not demanded anything there from you. My point is that you weren’t demanding anything; your “I’m just saying” was that X isn’t good enough without spelling out what Y would be good enough. You said the answer to his question doesn’t mean it’s cooling, or that it’s not warming – at which point you _ **don’t** _ go on to add what _ **would** _ mean (a) cooling, or (b) not warming. > [@](#): > > The overwhelming context shows that the UN climate guys are referring to the big picture and the warming trend, there has been no good justification nor support to claim that they are reporting no warming Again, that was my answer to his question, to which the UN figures were relevant and sufficient. If you ask a question to which the UN figures would insufficient or irrelevant, I’d answer it differently; you haven’t. > [@](#): > > once again, you only concentrate on a few years to get a misleading result that no serious statistician supports either. I concentrated on those years because he asked about '98 and '05 and '10. Ask a specific question that involves a bigger span of years, I’d answer differently. > [@](#): > > the only thing you can do is quote the same out of context quote again and again you only show the obvious, it was indeed taken out of context. The guy asked about three specific years, and I answered him. If you think a better question would take context into account, then ask it. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/290 "2011-09-02T17:48:28Z")
Maybe I could try a little gameplaying, to try to get into Waldo’s head the meaningless of his continual repetition if "1998 was warmer!! So: I am worried that my neighbor is infected with the zombie/vampire virus from I am Legend. Early in the movie Dr. Neville catches one of the z/vs to experiment on, and remarks that her temperature is the normal z/v 105 degrees. In 1998 my neighbor came down with malaria, and ran a temp of 104. In 1999 she measured 99 degrees, which is less than 104, so she must not be warming up. By 2003 her daily temp was 101, which is less than 104. so she must not be warming. By 2005, temp 102. etc- By 2006, 103 etc. by 2011, 104. Still not higher than 1998. The symptoms of z/v infection include hair loss, lethal sensitivity to light, and so on. Over the past decade, her hair has mostly fallen out, her skin has turned gray, her incisors have morphed into inch-long pointed fangs. she won’t go out of the house until night, and she insists on eating her steaks raw. But her temperature is still no higher than it was in 1998, so I guess I shouldn’t worry, right? And to answer Waldo’s repeated insistence on falsifiable evidence: a number of predictions have been made of possible symptoms of global warming, for example melting glaciers, animals and plants moving to higher/cooler environments, tropical diseases occurring in temperate climates, increases in extreme climate events, and so on. If none of these changes can be observed, the AGW theory is at least possible faulty. But, of course, they have been observed. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/291 "2011-09-02T17:58:29Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The guy asked about three specific years, and I answered him. If you think a better question would take context into account, then ask it. Meh, You are just trying to avoid the context, no news here. Again, there was no beef with what you replied to him, only that a huge chuck of context is missing. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/292 "2011-09-02T18:43:13Z")
> [@Mapache](#): > > Maybe I could try a little gameplaying, to try to get into Waldo’s head the meaningless of his continual repetition if "1998 was warmer!! Your analogy to I Am Legend is excellent, and so I of course grant that the lack of warming since '98 doesn’t falsify claims made about global warming. I _ **realize** _ that what we’ve observed isn’t good enough to falsify it; I merely wonder what hypothetical evidence you think _ **would** _ falsify it? > [@](#): > > And to answer Waldo’s repeated insistence on falsifiable evidence: a number of predictions have been made of possible symptoms of global warming, for example melting glaciers, animals and plants moving to higher/cooler environments, tropical diseases occurring in temperate climates, increases in extreme climate events, and so on. If none of these changes can be observed, the AGW theory is at least possible faulty. But, of course, they have been observed. I’m not asking about what has been observed, which hasn’t falsified it. I’m asking what could yet be observed to falsify it. [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Meh, You are just trying to avoid the context, no news here. Again, there was no beef with what you replied to him, only that a huge chuck of context is missing. [/QUOTE] He avoided the context when asking the question, and I answered the question he asked. If you’d ask a question that takes “a huge chuck of context” into account, I’d answer that question instead. Enlighten me: how could we hypothetically falsify the claims in a manner that _ **does** _ take “a huge chuck of context” into account? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/293 "2011-09-02T19:45:37Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Predicting future temperatures has great uncertainty, especially because, as temperatures rise, cooling via reflective aerosols (e.g. similar to [the sulfuric aerosols from volcanoes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols)) will be seen as a practical, inexpensive countermeasure. I’m not sure what your point is here. In my opinion, there is a lot of uncertainty about future global surface temperature even ignoring human activities. > [@](#): > > may do more harm in the oceans than in the atmosphere. As with warming, I would want to see the actual arguments and evidence. And if the conclusion is based on a computer simulation, I would need solid evidence that the computer simulation has been tested and validated. i.e. proof that the computer simulation has made actual predictions which later turned out to be accurate and were very unlikely to have been the result of chance. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/294 "2011-09-02T19:56:29Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > It is wrong to say that there has been cooling since 1998. The period 1999 to 2010 was significantly warmer than the period 1987 to 1998 (which was significantly warmer than the period 1976 to 1987), therefore the trend is a warming one not cooling. This would be true even if every single year since 1998 was cooler than that particular year. Well it depends what you mean by the phrase “Cooling since Year X.” It’s not carved in stone anywhere that to evaluate “Cooling since Year X,” you take the average temperature since year X and compare it to the average temperature in some number of years preceding year X. I think what you mean to say is that any cooling since 1998 doesn’t necessarily imply that the longer term trend is upwards. Which is true, but kinda beside the point under discussion. > [@](#): > > Also, 1998 is clearly an outlier in these data. If you are honestly analysing the trend, you should be attempting to minimise its impact on your data, certainly not emphasise it! Would it have been similarly dishonest, back in 1998 or 1999 to highlight 1998 as evidence of an alarming warming trend? > [@](#): > > The theory goes: > > CO2 is a greenhouse gas. > CO2 levels are increasing. > Therefore global warming should occur. As a point of information, this is a common misconception. The core issue in the dispute is over water vapor feedback. > [@](#): > > So if you want to disprove global warming, surely disproving one of these two points is the easiest starting point? Seems to me that the starting point in disproving global warming would be to figure out exactly what predictions the hypothesis is making. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/295 "2011-09-02T21:00:18Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > He avoided the context when asking the question, and I answered the question he asked. If you’d ask a question that takes “a huge chuck of context” into account, I’d answer that question instead. Enlighten me: how could we hypothetically falsify the claims in a manner that _ **does** _ take “a huge chuck of context” into account? As an enlightenment effort first one has to say that you even know that it was a typo and you only want to do childish replies. Second, to falsify what I said regarding the context: that clearly the UN is referring to a warming trend that is continuing, you only need to post a quote from a UN climate researcher that agrees that there is no warming; it is clear that the notes and releases from the UN report a warming trend, it is also clear that you continue to ignore that independent statisticians report that claiming that there is no warming trend going on is not legitimate. "Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers." - [Statisticians reject global cooling | Grist](http://www.grist.org/article/statisticians-reject-global-cooling) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/296 "2011-09-02T21:30:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > to falsify what I said regarding the context: that clearly the UN is referring to a warming trend that is continuing, you only need to post a quote from a UN climate researcher that agrees that there is no warming; it is clear that the notes and releases from the UN report a warming trend, it is also clear that you continue to ignore that independent statisticians report that claiming that there is no warming trend going on is not legitimate. Oh, that’s beautiful. So no data can hypothetically falsify the warming trend; we instead can merely wait until the UN’s climate researchers agree there’s no warming trend? Doesn’t matter what facts roll in, only what conclusions they keep offering? Your stated falsification criterion is whatever their _ **unstated** _ falsification criterion is? Now, I could be wrong; if they’ve stated such a falsification criterion, and you’re hereby endorsing it, then simply enlighten me to end my signature objection. But if they’re being as coy as you are, such that we haven’t been told what they’d accept as significant and sufficient – well, shucks, that’s a distinction without a difference. > [@](#): > > As an enlightenment effort first one has to say that you even know that it was a typo and you only want to do childish replies. Well, not _ **only,** _ no. Truth is, though, I simply didn’t want to derail the thread, and so copy-and-pasted it for emphasis without comment; I want to minimize the one-in-a-hundred chance that I mistakenly think you’re mistaken, and I want to do it without a snide _“I assume you meant to write that correctly, right?”_ What’s a less childish way to make sure we’re on the same page? (And why is this bugging you now? It’s how I’ve dealt with your past typos in this thread, sure as it’s saved us this back-and-forth in those instances.) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/297 "2011-09-02T21:48:43Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Would it have been similarly dishonest, back in 1998 or 1999 to highlight 1998 as evidence of an alarming warming trend? Yes, and I’m not aware of a serious researcher making that point, it was just part on the trend and they were aware that there was an exceptional El Nino that year. > [@brazil84](#): > > As a point of information, this is a common misconception. The core issue in the dispute is over water vapor feedback. And, as I think he will ignore it like many times before, the evidence for the feedback is already here. > **[Water Vapor Feedback Loop Will Cause Accelerated Global Warming, Professor Warns](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm)** > > Here's yet another reason to hate humidity: it expands global warming, says a professor of Atmospheric Sciences writing in the journal Science. He says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere.... > [@](#): > > The perspective by Dessler and co-author Steven Sherwood of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is published in the journal Science. In the article, they review and summarize the peer-reviewed evidence in support of a strong water vapor feedback and conclude that the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. > > “For years, there was a debate over this mechanism, with some even questioning if the water vapor feedback existed at all. But recent work on this feedback has moved its existence and strength beyond argument,” Dessler adds. > > Predictions of significant global warming over the next 100 years by climate models require a strong water vapor feedback. Recent estimates suggest the earth will warm from 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next century – a scenario that could have devastating long-term consequences. > > “Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right, which means that unless we reduce emissions, it is going to get much, much warmer on our planet by the end of the century,” he adds. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/298 "2011-09-02T21:59:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Oh, that’s beautiful. So no data can hypothetically falsify the warming trend; we instead can merely wait until the UN’s climate researchers agree there’s no warming trend? Doesn’t matter what facts roll in, only what conclusions they keep offering? Your stated falsification criterion is whatever their _ **unstated** _ falsification criterion is? No, once again, I’m talking about finding justification that the UN was not talking about a warming trend, your point and the out of context quote made the claim that the UN supported you on saying that there was no warming trend. Hard to falsify a misunderstanding or a baseless question. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Now, I could be wrong; if they’ve stated such a falsification criterion, and you’re hereby endorsing it, then simply enlighten me to end my signature objection. But if they’re being as coy as you are, such that we haven’t been told what they’d accept as significant and sufficient – well, shucks, that’s a distinction without a difference. Keep living with disappointment, as long as you do not want to deal with what the independent statisticians reported and what the UN overwhelmingly reported you only have an out of context quote and no support from the UN to claim that there is not a warming trend. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/299 "2011-09-02T23:25:29Z")
Why are you so studiously avoiding answering our simple questions Gigobuster? :rolleyes: This is the fourth time I’ve had to ask. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/300 "2011-09-03T00:00:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Why are you so studiously avoiding answering our simple questions Gigobuster? :rolleyes: > > This is the fourth time I’ve had to ask. I already told you why, simple answers do not work here as history shows how simple answers are distorted forever. [http://climatecrocks.com/2009/10/06/birth-of-a-crock/](http://climatecrocks.com/2009/10/06/birth-of-a-crock/) [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/) Until the day deniers stop jumping and defending misunderstandings (most if not of all the myths are \*\*never \*\*taken back by the denier sites, demonstrating that science is not what is driving them) of what researchers say, one can not really take the questions of ‘skeptics’ based on those misunderstandings seriously. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/QwnrpwctIh4/maxresdefault.jpg "1998 Revisited") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=16)