# Leaked IPCC report: 90% confidence in AGW is now 95% -- and sea level will rise! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002 "2013-08-23T20:36:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**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 10, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/301 "2013-09-10T02:01:43Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened for clarity) > > That’s exactly the way I feel about the IPCC. > > I’ll wait for the IPCC’s “new-and-improved” report to see if they can finally put together a report that can stand up to a truely independent peer review and see if the IPCC will allow every other organization access to their data and processes. Repeating this does not make it sound better, you are again not taking into account that scientists and their research ( **that already were reviewed** ) that contribute to the IPCC, were already quoted in this thread also. The report is not bound to be as surprising as you want. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/302 "2013-09-10T02:29:10Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem some of us have is that AGW proponents constantly play a shell game where they make whatever claim about future effects of warming they can find any kind of cite for, and then if people question it they respond by calling them deniers and claiming the science is settled. When pressed, they’ll point to surveys of scientists that show a high percentage agree that global warming is real. And that much is true… > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I don’t understand your objection, or what kind of cite you’re looking for. You mean you want a cite showing that a consensus of scientists do not agree with some specific claim for future warming? I’m not sure how to do that… > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It’s not about ‘dangers’ - it’s about cost-benefit. How much warming can we avoid, how much will it cost us to do so, and what’s the economic benefit of doing that?.. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You’re going to have to expand on this. Do you mean the U.S. could use protectionism to force China to impose carbon taxes or CO2 limits? If so, that would be a terrible idea. Have you forgotten that China holds a tremendous amount of U.S. debt? Or that they could just as easily play the protectionism game? How do you think voters in the U.S. would respond to a government that imposed trade sanctions on China and China retaliated, resulting in $500 iPhones and major price increases on everything from consumer electronics to clothing? Somehow I think the Chinese Communists could weather that storm a little better than could a politician in a Democratic country. Ask the former government of Australia how well their carbon tax worked out for them. It’s a pity that such excelent posts, which do not contradict the basic AGW theory, will be answered with more unconnected links or avoided. Even if every friggin’ scenario the IPCC posits is correct it doesn’t necessarily mean they (the IPCC) or anyone know what to do. But the heresy is not being 10000000% in agreement. ---
**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 10, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/303 "2013-09-10T02:35:00Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It’s a pity that such excelent posts, which do not contradict the basic AGW theory, will be answered with more unconnected links or avoided. They were not, as I pointed before the first post is misleading and the others are basic fear mongering against change. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/304 "2013-09-10T02:43:04Z")
Even small, moderate economic changes to address the problem will be of some help. If your kitchen is on fire, do you just shrug (and maybe fry some eggs in the flames) or do you fight it, so it doesn’t spread to the whole house? Saying “Some high-latitude areas will benefit from warmer temperatures and a longer growing season” seems a lot like frying eggs. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/305 "2013-09-10T02:47:16Z")
My favourite part about Sam’s post is that they focus on people. In the end it doesn’t matter what the temperature anomaly will be in 20 years. The question are? 1. Can we do something about it? 2. Will we do it? 3. Can we correctly assess the pros and cons? 4. Is fighting AGW more important than other stuff like access to clean water, vaccination, or micronutrients? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/306 "2013-09-10T02:51:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Even small, moderate economic changes to address the problem will be of some help. If your kitchen is on fire, do you just shrug (and maybe fry some eggs in the flames) or do you fight it, so it doesn’t spread to the whole house? Saying “Some high-latitude areas will benefit from warmer temperatures and a longer growing season” seems a lot like frying eggs. No. The question is “how much of your disposable income will commit to protect your house about a probalbe event 30 years from now?” “Is it cheaper to move?” “How well can you assess the cost?” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/307 "2013-09-10T03:59:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Repeating this does not make it sound better, you are again not taking into account that scientists and their research ( **that already were reviewed** ) that contribute to the IPCC, were already quoted in this thread also. The report is not bound to be as surprising as you want. LOL. “Sound better”??? Has your often repeated claim that “people are ignorant” if they dare question or rejected the IPCC-driven MMCO2GW zealotry changed anyone’s mind? Does repeatedly calling others “ignorant” somehow “sound better”? I fondly remember the Climategate email of IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth where he said, "_The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."_ Ah, good time, good time indeed. ---
**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 10, 2013, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/308 "2013-09-10T04:36:09Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > LOL. “Sound better”??? Has your often repeated claim that “people are ignorant” if they dare question or rejected the IPCC-driven MMCO2GW zealotry changed anyone’s mind? Does repeatedly calling others “ignorant” somehow “sound better”? > > I fondly remember the Climategate email of IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth where he said, "_The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."_ Ah, good time, good time indeed. > **["Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest...](https://www.mediamatters.org/legacy/climategate-exposed-conservative-media-distort-stolen-emails-latest-attack-global-warming)** > > Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities... > [@](#): > > REALITY: Trenberth’s email referred to “inadequate” system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited “my own article on where the heck is global warming” and wrote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate” [emphasis added]. > > Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited. Wired’s Threat Level blog reported that Trenberth “says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) – actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.” [RealClimate.org](http://RealClimate.org) similarly stated in a November 23 post that “[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.” Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an “incomplete explanation” of short-term climate variations, and maintained that “global warming is unequivocally happening.” Post #125 BTW has Kevin Trenberth explaining where that heat is going as more data is obtained from the oceans. And anyone can see that you just ignored the cite. In essence: Where the heat was going, mostly the oceans for the time being, is getting confirmation from the recent ocean data. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/309 "2013-09-10T05:01:18Z")
Reading these Climate Change threads is a little bit amusing and a little bit frustrating as they always turn into the Gigobuster show. Amusing because it always happens, frustrating because Gigo always does the same thing, posts links to Skeptical Science and accuses anyone who dares question anything of being a denier. Oh a religous denier, which is rather funny considering the guy who founded Skeptical Science is a believer and specifically founded Sks because: > [@](#): > > I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25 Anyway, on to the actual science. There are some things we know. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We don’t know what the mutliplier of CO2 is. We have a guess but that range could very well be high. Like seven times too high. Warning pdf. [Link](http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf). The money shot: > [@](#): > > The values for the global climate sensitivity published by the IPCC [3] cover a range from 2.1˚C – 4.4˚C with an average value of 3.2˚C, which is seven times larger than that predicted here. Note, that paper was presented at the European Geosciences Union. And another: > [@](#): > > Our results are incompatibly lower (P \< 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming. Link to [paper](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html). Note the paper was published in Nature. So, when someone tells you they know the multiplier of CO2, well, they don’t. There are serious questions about the value even though the Sks folks will pretend otherwise. Next, we don’t know how cosmic rays interact with the atmosphere and how they affect could formation. It now appears that the theory of could formation is incorrect and that cosmic rays play a much larger role than expected. > [@](#): > > The result boosts our theory that cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are directly involved in the Earth’s weather and climate,” says Henrik Svensmark, lead author of the new report. “In experiments over many years, we have shown that ionizing rays help to form small molecular clusters. Critics have argued that the clusters cannot grow large enough to affect cloud formation significantly. But our current research, of which the reported SKY2 experiment forms just one part, contradicts their conventional view. Now we want to close in on the details of the unexpected chemistry occurring in the air, at the end of the long journey that brought the cosmic rays here from exploded stars. [Link](http://www.dtu.dk/english/News/Nyhed?id=%7BABB2F1B4-F5F7-4452-BB39-9818EA7CB8F9%7D) Then there is the solar effect. Some folks found a surprise energy transfer from the sun and, as far as I can tell, climate scientist went ‘Denier!!!’ and ignored the research. [Link](http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx). The money shot: > [@](#): > > It’s like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Then there is the climate science culture. Apparently, anyone who dares to question the present climate change dogma is consider a heretic and pushed out. [Here](http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-and-motivated-reasoning/)is an excellent essay on the situation from an insider, Judith Curry who is the Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The money shot: > [@](#): > > Last year, I encountered a stark example of this. One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics. So, a respected climate scientist is reporting that scientists who go against the climate change dogma are being ‘strongly encouraged’ to NOT publish. That is not a healthy environment in which to do science. To quote Richard Feynman: > [@](#): > > One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results. Then there is the math. Instead of listing the horrid math mistakes that climate scientists have made, I’ll just link to a report on the uncertainty methods used by the IPCC. The money shot: > [@](#): > > The forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the US National Climate Assessment Report will not adequately address this issue. Worse still, prevailing techniques for quantifying the uncertainties that are inherent in observed climate trends and projections of climate change are out of date by well over a decade. Modern statistical methods and models could improve this situation dramatically. [Link](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1980.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309)to paper published in Nature Climate Change. I will probably post more later, it is getting late and I have a real job I need to get to in the morning. However, a last link regarding the climate and the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). Link to [graph](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg)from paper. This papers conclusion: > [@](#): > > The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing. It is suggested here that this interruption has been caused by the suspension of the near linear (+ 0.5 °C/100 years or 0.05 °C/10 years) temperature increase over the last two centuries, due to recovery from the Little Ice Age, by a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2 °C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000—a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940. Because both the near linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation are likely to be natural changes (the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and an oscillation related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), respectively), they must be carefully subtracted from temperature data before estimating the effects of CO2. The paper can be found [here](http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4). The climate is a hugely complex thing. Pretending that we fully know what is happening with the climate is a joke. There are huge questions that need to be answered and there are more things we don’t know that we don’t know out there to find. Of course, anyone who questions the Climate Scientists is a denier. Oh, and the artic ice, which was supposed to be gone by [2012](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html)is now growing at a record pace. [Link](http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/record-arctic-ice-growth-in-2012-2013/) Slee P.S Gigo, did you note how I posted links to actual research instead of one website? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/310 "2013-09-10T05:13:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Post #125 BTW has Kevin Trenberth explaining where that heat is going as more data is obtained from the oceans. And anyone can see that you just ignored the cite. > > In essence: Where the heat was going, mostly the oceans for the time being, is getting confirmation from the recent ocean data. \*Quote: REALITY: Trenberth’s email referred to “inadequate” system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited “my own article on where the heck is global warming” and wrote: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: **but the data are surely wrong.** **Our observing system is inadequate**" \* I also fondly remember that even Trenberth suggested that the data was wrong and the observing system was inadequate. Maybe the new-and-improved IPCC report will finally convince everyone that the IPCC actually knows what it’s talking about. After all, even a blind pig can find a truffle occasionally. I’m willing to give them a chance. ---
**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 10, 2013, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/311 "2013-09-10T05:38:25Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Reading these Climate Change threads is a little bit amusing and a little bit frustrating as they always turn into the Gigobuster show. Amusing because it always happens, frustrating because Gigo always does the same thing, posts links to Skeptical Science and accuses anyone who dares question anything of being a denier. Oh a religous denier, which is rather funny considering the guy who founded Skeptical Science is a believer and specifically founded Sks because: As usual you forgot to mention that Spencer was wrong on the science, the religious part was only to deal with the silly accusation that I use religion or is like a religions fanatic, it is a meaningless thing to say unless it is your religion what is is affecting science, Spencer does and it is one of the few researchers that is left for the contrarians. > [@sleestak](#): > > Anyway, on to the actual science. > > There are some things we know. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We don’t know what the mutliplier of CO2 is. We have a guess but that range could very well be high. Like seven times too high. Warning pdf. [Link](http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf). > > The money shot: > > Note, that paper was presented at the European Geosciences Union. And it was shot down awhile ago: > **[Consider a Spherical Truncated Icosahedron](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/03/toy-model.html)** > > UPDATE: A much better title In the comments, palindrom points to a toy model which has been submitted to EGU. Over in the wacky world of H... > [@](#): > > Over in the wacky world of Huffington Post, a denialist troll posted a link to this odd paper: > > [http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf](http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf) > > in which Hermann Harde, a laser spectroscopist morphs into a climate modeler, inserts some very good molecular data into what appears to be a rather crude, toy, do-it-yourself planetary atmosphere, and decides the CO2 isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be as a greenhouse gas. Can someone who is actually expert at this give an authoritative review of this? (Dammit, Jim), I’m an astronomer, not a planetary atmospheres person, so I don’t have the requisite deep knowledge of planetary atmospheres models, but the inquiring minds posting here ought to know … > [@](#): > > The problem is that there are only two levels. The greenhouse effect is driven by the increase in the height of the atmosphere from which radiation that can be absorbed or emitted by CO2 can reach space. This cannot be captured in a two level model, which, of necessity has to crudely average over a lot of parameters. Of course some of the devil is in the details, such as how much water vapor, clouds, etc is in the second level. The figure, of course, is from Rabett Run’s reply to Gerlich and Tschuschner. Harde’s stuff is of a much higher quality than the G&T joke. > > Oh yes, this appears to be a bad week for climate denialists. Roy Spencer took five on the nose, two from Arthur Smith and three from Barry Bickmore As for the second link: [http://climatecrocks.com/2013/08/14/nuccitelli-grand-solar-minimum-would-barely-dent-global-warming/](http://climatecrocks.com/2013/08/14/nuccitelli-grand-solar-minimum-would-barely-dent-global-warming/) > [@](#): > > One of the enduring standards of climate denialism: We’re going into a new solar minimum, the earth is going to get colder, we’ll have a new “little ice age”. > > I handled it some time ago in the video above. There’s been a minor revival due to a recent article in a right wind Danish newspaper. Dana Nuccitelli explains in The Guardian: > > ``` > Recent articles in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (translation available here) and in the Irish Times both ran headlines claiming that another grand solar minimum could potentially trigger an “ice age” or “mini ice age” this century. These articles actually refer to the Little Ice Age (LIA) – a period about 500 to 150 years ago when global surface temperatures were approximately 1°C colder than they are today. This is quite different from an ice age, which are more like 5°C colder than today. The LIA was not actually very cold on a global scale. > > So, in order to trigger another LIA, a new grand solar minimum would have to cause about 1°C cooling, plus it would have to offset the continued human-caused global warming of 1 to 5°C by 2100, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century. > > In the Jyllands-Posten article, Henrik Svensmark (the main scientist behind the hypothesis that the sun has a significant indirect impact on global climate via galactic cosmic rays) was a bit more measured, suggesting, > > ``` > > > [@](#): > > > > “I can imagine that it will become 0.2°C colder. I would be surprised if it became 1–2°C” > > ``` > So these two articles are suggesting that a grand solar minimum could have a net cooling effect in the ballpark of 1 to 6°C, depending on how human greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century. Is it plausible that a grand solar minimum could make that happen? > > The short answer is, ‘No.’ > > ``` Was going to check the other cites, but I can see the quality already. > [@sleestak](#): > > The climate is a hugely complex thing. Pretending that we fully know what is happening with the climate is a joke. There are huge questions that need to be answered and there are more things we don’t know that we don’t know out there to find. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/a69_owv4jEE/maxresdefault.jpg ""We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE) > [@](#): > > It’s true that Earth’s a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works. > [@sleestak](#): > > Of course, anyone who questions the Climate Scientists is a denier. Straw man, anyone can check my history and see that I reported that there are real skeptics and then we have deniers. > [@sleestak](#): > > Oh, and the artic ice, which was supposed to be gone by [2012](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html)is now growing at a record pace. [Link](http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/record-arctic-ice-growth-in-2012-2013/) Ah, blogessor Goddard. indeed the pickings are so pitiful that WUWT and other denialist sources have to depend on an anonymous blogger that still gets it wrong. [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/) [http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/14/guest-post-its-ice-melt-season-deniers-let-the-conspiracy-theories-flow/comment-page-1/](http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/14/guest-post-its-ice-melt-season-deniers-let-the-conspiracy-theories-flow/comment-page-1/) > [@sleestak](#): > > P.S Gigo, did you note how I posted links to actual research instead of one website? Read up, I did, did you notice that not a single link here is from “Skeptical Science”? ---
**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 10, 2013, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/312 "2013-09-10T06:00:40Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > \*Quote: > REALITY: Trenberth’s email referred to “inadequate” system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited “my own article on where the heck is global warming” and wrote: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: > > **but the data are surely wrong.** > > **Our observing system is inadequate**" \* > > I also fondly remember that even Trenberth suggested that the data was wrong and the observing system was inadequate. > > Maybe the new-and-improved IPCC report will finally convince everyone that the IPCC actually knows what it’s talking about. After all, even a blind pig can find a truffle occasionally. I’m willing to give them a chance. And once again you just get the misleading conclusion. One can translate what Trenberth said as: ‘As we know very well the levels of the heat that was detected going down from the atmosphere, the data so far is reporting that we are missing a good deal of the warming that is there’ Kevin and others are now more confident of where the heat did go because the tools have become more accurate. What the deniers did with the email was only capture science in action, Scientists like him having issues with the then current technology. The denier sources have deceived you, the technology is better and reporting better on where the heat is going. Not away, that is for sure. And Trenberth was peer reviewed already. And contributing to the new report. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/313 "2013-09-10T07:52:37Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I think this post gets to the heart of the matter. > > When people don’t automatically agree with people like you and GIGO, especially about pet projects such as these, you immediately go into attack mode and (wrongly) think that people disagree with the science. If you have no disagreement with the science, then you shouldn’t waste your time trying to nitpick it. > [@](#): > > What it does mean (rightly) is simple, you haven’t yet convinced them that your side is 100% correct. I don’t have a side, other than trusting scientific consensus. I do have an issue with untrained people ignorantly scoffing at the scientific consensus and arrogantly think they have spotted a neener-neener that invalidates the consensus. > [@](#): > > I want you both to read and understand that before posting a bunch of links trying to convince someone who really doesn’t give much of a shit one way or the other. I’m glad if the others agree with the science. Because the question should be what do we do about it, not if we should trust the 3% who disagree with consensus. > [@](#): > > I am glad that GIGO posts scientific data to back his claims as I am glad that people who form debates about varying subjects do so as well, all over this board. So I can form my own opinion (using the relevant expert collected data and opinion) > > What I am not glad about is if immediate and complete agreement isn’t reached, some of you (general) go into all out attack which IMO just leads people into further disagreement BECAUSE of you. Thinking you have spotted the flaw that thousands of experts haven’t is delusional. Sure it’s possible, but if you have, get off the message board and write that journal article that will save the world. As I say, thinking we should ignore the problem is fine. But at least be honest enough to admit that there is very likely a problem. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/314 "2013-09-10T13:24:23Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We don’t know what the mutliplier of CO2 is. When you say “multiplier of CO2,” are you talking about the degree to which CO2 warming would be amplified by other effects? If so, I would have to agree with you. The predictions of doom and gloom depend on positive feedback, i.e. the claim that warming caused by CO2 will result in higher levels of water vapor, which will cause more warming, and so on. However, there is little or no actual evidence for the water vapor feedback hypothesis. As far as I know it’s just speculation and unverified computer simulations. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/315 "2013-09-10T13:53:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > The predictions of doom and gloom depend on positive feedback, i.e. the claim that warming caused by CO2 will result in higher levels of water vapor, which will cause more warming, and so on. True, except for the concerns over ocean changes due to excess carbon. That does not depend on temperatures. ---
**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 10, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/316 "2013-09-10T14:28:43Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > When you say “multiplier of CO2,” are you talking about the degree to which CO2 warming would be amplified by other effects? > > If so, I would have to agree with you. The predictions of doom and gloom depend on positive feedback, i.e. the claim that warming caused by CO2 will result in higher levels of water vapor, which will cause more warming, and so on. However, there is little or no actual evidence for the water vapor feedback hypothesis. As far as I know it’s just speculation and unverified computer simulations. Of course this is just complete ignorance of the current research. > **[EarthSky | Water vapor has role in global warming](https://earthsky.org/earth/andrew-dessler-says-water-vapors-role-in-warming-now-understood/)** > [@](#): > > Andrew Dessler: One of the durable urban legends you hear is that the models don’t get water vapor right, or we don’t understand water vapor. And that’s no longer the case. > > Dessler explained that water vapor has been proven to be a major contributor to global warming. He said carbon dioxide emissions provide the initial warming, by increasing surface temperatures on the planet. Warmer temperatures cause more water to be evaporated off the oceans, which increases the amount of water vapor, or humidity, in the air. > > Andrew Dessler: The higher humidity in the atmosphere, because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, gives you additional warming. It’s that amplification that we call the ‘water vapor feedback.’ > > Dessler said data from AIRS, a NASA satellite instrument that measures water vapor across the world, confirmed this feedback. > > Andrew Dessler: You get twice the warming with the water vapor feedback than you would without the water vapor feedback. > > In other words, water vapor makes carbon dioxide twice as effective at warming the planet. Dessler has been studying the role of water vapor in the atmosphere for the past 10 years. He said today, the science of water vapor is well understood, but the public is still confused about it. > > Andrew Dessler: If you go back 20 years, there was some credible arguments that there were holes in our understanding. But over the course of the last 20 years, we’ve really nailed down some of these problems. But for whatever reason, the knowledge that we’ve really solved a lot of these problems hasn’t made it into the public debate. As usual, the false skeptic media do not take that into account. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/317 "2013-09-10T20:12:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And once again you just get the misleading conclusion. One can translate what Trenberth said as: ‘As we know very well the levels of the heat that was detected going down from the atmosphere, the data so far is reporting that we are missing a good deal of the warming that is there’ Kevin and others are now more confident of where the heat did go because the tools have become more accurate. > > What the deniers did with the email was only capture science in action, Scientists like him having issues with the then current technology. The denier sources have deceived you, the technology is better and reporting better on where the heat is going. Not away, that is for sure. > > And Trenberth was peer reviewed already. And contributing to the new report. LOL. Of course, everyone who questions the zealotry of MMCO2GW is mislead or deceived or ignorant, according to you. You admit that Trenberth is having issues with the then current technology, just like many of the skeptics, but Trenberth is well informed, according to you. “IF” one can translate what Trenberth said as: 'As we know very well the levels of the heat that was detected going down from the atmosphere, the data so far is reporting that WE ARE MISSING A GOOD DEAL OF THE WARMING THAT IS THERE", isn’t that implying that the well informed Trenberth agrees that the numbers previously supplied by the IPCC are wrong? I can only hope that Trenberth will finally get the numbers correct for the new report. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/318 "2013-09-10T20:28:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > …As I say, thinking we should ignore the problem is fine. But at least be honest enough to admit that there is very likely a problem. (shortened for clarity) What do you mean, “very LIKELY a problem”??? Are you saying that you’re not sure there is a problem? Was it the current plateauing of the global tempurature that gives you pause? Was it the fact that the IPCC’s various predictions have all overshot the actual global temps? Here’s hoping that the new-and-improved IPCC report will but everyones mind at ease. Then you won’t have to say that there is “very likely a problem” any more. You’ll know, I’ll know, heck, we’ll all know. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/319 "2013-09-10T20:49:10Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened for clarity) > > What do you mean, “very LIKELY a problem”??? Are you saying that you’re not sure there is a problem? Was it the current plateauing of the global tempurature that gives you pause? Was it the fact that the IPCC’s various predictions have all overshot the actual global temps? > > Here’s hoping that the new-and-improved IPCC report will but everyones mind at ease. Then you won’t have to say that there is “very likely a problem” any more. You’ll know, I’ll know, heck, we’ll all know. “Help, Help! The sky is very likely falling!! The sky is very likely falling!!!” just loses a little something, don’t you think? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/320 "2013-09-10T21:33:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > “Help, Help! The sky is very likely falling!! The sky is very likely falling!!!” just loses a little something, don’t you think? 😃 It reminds me of a typical horoscope, e.g.: > [@](#): > > A short trip, or at least a lot of activity and movement, is **very likely** now. A significant conversation, learning from another person, and getting your own ideas and perceptions across to others is also likely. You may hear from someone who has important information for you or feel a pressing need to write or call someone else in order to bring some matter in the open. Communications of all kinds play an important role in your life now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002.md?page=17)