# 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:** 18
**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 16, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/341 "2013-09-16T01:32:12Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Since the OP is about 5AR, I’ll refer to it. > I’m sure warmist-alarmists will soon convert it into a horribly-compromised document and only refer to headlnes on websites instead of the actual results ofr the actual studies. Nope, as usual and as history told us, it is the denier media the ones that are misrepresenting the report and the ones accused by the same media of being alarmists continue to be the target of their misrepresentations. > **[Archived blog posts](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/archived-posts/blog-posts-not-on-met-office-website)** > > Can't find the blog post you're looking for? Some of our older posts have been archived and were not moved across to the Met Office website when we moved the blog. > [@](#): > > Met Office in the Mail on Sunday > > An article appears in the Mail on Sunday today focusing on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) which it bills this as the ‘world’s most authoritative climate study’. > [@](#): > > The article also goes on to mention some of the claims made in a commentary published by Nic Lewis yesterday. This is a lengthy and technical commentary covering several topics and will require time to provide as helpful a response as possible, so further comment will be released in due course. > > There are a couple of points raised in the Mail story which should be addressed now, however. > > The article states that the Met Office’s ‘flagship’ model (referring to our Earth System Model known as HadGEM2-ES) is too sensitive to greenhouse gases and therefore overestimates the possible temperature changes we may see by 2100. > > There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. It is indeed the case that HadGEM2-ES is among the most sensitive models used by the IPCC (something the Met Office itself has discussed in a science paper published early this year), but it lies within the accepted range of climate sensitivity highlighted by the IPCC. ---
**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 16, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/342 "2013-09-16T01:48:18Z")
Since the OP is about 5AR, I’ll refer to it, or for the time being, the leaked reports. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/343 "2013-09-16T02:16:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, as usual and as history told us, it is the denier media the ones that are **misrepresenting the report** and the ones accused by the same media of being alarmists continue to be the target of their misrepresentations. (underlined and boldened for my benefit) What report? The one that hasn’t been released yet? That report? Are you verifying the results of the unreleased report? I wonder what the IPCC will claim in the new-and-improved-yet-unreleased report? Will it explain why the previously expected “global” temps overshot the actual “global” temps? Will it explain how they got it wrong? Will it mention the volcanos on the Arctic seabed? Have they found more than four dead polar bears floating in the Arctic? ---
**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 16, 2013, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/344 "2013-09-16T02:40:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (underlined and boldened for my benefit) > > What report? The one that hasn’t been released yet? That report? Are you verifying the results of the unreleased report? You did not read the posted cite, it is the leaked report and once again, the Daily Fail as usual misrepresents what the MET office reported and contributed to the IPCC. > [@doorhinge](#): > > I wonder what the IPCC will claim in the new-and-improved-yet-unreleased report? Will it explain why the previously expected “global” temps overshot the actual “global” temps? Will it explain how they got it wrong? Will it mention the volcanos on the Arctic seabed? Have they found more than four dead polar bears floating in the Arctic? Do you have anything else other that repeating the same wrong information from discredited sources like the Daily Mail? > **[BraveNewClimate - BraveNewClimate](https://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/14/two-denialist-talking-points-quashed/)** > > Two things that Professor Ian Plimer confidently touted during his presentation at the SA Skeptics annual conference was (1) the relevance of David Evan’s > [@](#): > > Then there is question of the influence of those sub-sea Arctic volcanoes. Could they possibly be the cause of the melting surface ice, due to a slow diffusion of heat from the ocean floor, many kilometres deep, to the surface waters? (and, one presumes, a recent increase in volcanic activity). NY Times investigative journalist Andy Revkin handballed this question to his extensive scientific contact list, to get a decent spread of informed answers. The response on this issue, by 7 different scientists who work in this area, is an unequivocal NO! I’ll quote a couple below, but I suggest you read the two posts by Revkin on this issue, here and here, for the full story and links. > > Jamie Morison, University of Washington (I went with Dr. Morison and the rest of the North Pole Environmental Observatory team to the North Pole sea ice in 2003): > > It occurs to me that we have primary evidence that heat from the bottom is not reaching the ice. Temperature profiles from virtually everywhere in the Arctic Ocean display a maximum temperature at a depth from 200-400 [meters]. This is associated with the Atlantic Water entering the basin from the Norwegian Sea. Fundamental laws of physics require that below the depth of this maximum, the heat flux is downward. **Very near the bottom temperatures have been found to increase with depth indicating a small upward heat flux from geothermal sources, which help to heat only the very deepest water.** > > The heat flux above the Atlantic temperature maximum is upward. The rate of this flux of Atlantic Water heat flux is variable depending on depth of the maximum and overlying stratification (stratification is controlled by salinity in the Arctic Ocean). Treshnikov estimated it from Atlantic Water heat content to be a couple of Watt/m2 in much of the Euarasian Basin. It is smaller farther from Fram Strait and greater near Fram Strait. How this flux changes is potentially very important to the ice cover. Changes in geothermal heat flux are not. > > AND > > Dr. Schlindwein sees almost no chance of surface disruption from the eruptions: > > I am currently working on a reconstruction of the Gakkel volcanic episode from 1999-2007 integrating seismicity data and water column observations and I have started to look at sea ice images as well. We know pretty well when the 1999 eruption took place; it will be easy to check for effects on the sea ice. I doubt there will be such effects: > > In 2001, the volcano at 85E was still erupting explosively, although in a less vigorous mode (Schlindwein et al., GRL, 2005). The associated event plume in the water column is well surveyed and described in Edmonds et al. (Nature 2003). That plume of relatively “warm” water – temperature anomaly less than 1/10 degree – reaches a minimum water depth of about 1700 m, its center being around 2500 m water depth. These data make it very evident that the sea ice is not influenced by the heat released from the ongoing eruption. > > So, two more sceptical questions bite the dust. But I wonder if Ian Plimer, David Evans, Fred Singer and others who have put store in these theories, will pay any attention? Obviously not. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/345 "2013-09-16T03:12:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You did not read the posted cite, it is the leaked report and once again, the Daily Fail as usual misrepresents what the MET office reported and contributed to the IPCC. > Do you have anything else other that repeating the same wrong information from discredited sources like the Daily Mail? > > [BraveNewClimate - BraveNewClimate](http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/14/two-denialist-talking-points-quashed/) > Obviously not. I wasn’t aware that the soon-to-be-released IPCC report had been officially vetted by anyone of importance yet. Isn’t it normal for scientific reports to have been vetted BEFORE the true-believers champion it’s unreleased findings? Or is it now considered the “norm” to simply claim that since everyone but true-belivers are ignorant, it doesn’t really matter what their input might be? The report hasn’t been released. The report hasn’t been peer reviewed by deniers and believers. It’s unknown if the IPCC will share ALL of it’s data and processes with ALL of the groups that would like to examine it. The suspense is killing me. ---
**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 16, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/346 "2013-09-16T03:22:12Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I wasn’t aware that the soon-to-be-released IPCC report had been officially vetted by anyone of importance yet. Isn’t it normal for scientific reports to have been vetted BEFORE the true-believers champion it’s unreleased findings? > > Or is it now considered the “norm” to simply claim that since everyone but true-belivers are ignorant, it doesn’t really matter what their input might be? Mentioning items like the arctic undersea volcanoes that were already looked at, only showed that once again you are relying on sources of information that \*\*never \*\*go back to correct their misinformation. (Why is it that skeptics that get burned by those misinformers \*\*never \*\*complain to those sources for misguiding them?) It is only important to notice that it is then unlikely to be an important item in the IPCC report. > [@doorhinge](#): > > The report hasn’t been released. The report hasn’t been peer reviewed by deniers and believers. It’s unknown if the IPCC will share ALL of it’s data and processes with ALL of the groups that would like to examine it. The suspense is killing me. And you are only arguing from ignorance, you need to learn why it is a basic fallacy. As pointed before, it is unlikely that the report will be different from what the scientists and organizations that are contributing to the IPCC will make the IPCC tell you a wildly different history regarding the arctic volcanoes. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/347 "2013-09-16T09:52:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I am skeptical of the rapid positive feedback model for the simple reason that complex systems tend to be stable due to negative feedback, I agree. If a system has been around for a long time, the default assumption should be that if you push on it, it will push back. The warmists turn this assumption on its head by asserting that not only does the climate not push back against warming, it amplifies any warming. And of course the main “evidence” for this claim is that there exist climate simulations which (1) assume great sensitivity to CO2; and (2) are consistent with past temperatures even if they are unable to predict future temperatures. If a predictor is great at predicting things after the fact, it should not instill much confidence. ---
**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 16, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/348 "2013-09-16T13:37:31Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I agree. If a system has been around for a long time, the default assumption should be that if you push on it, it will push back. > > The warmists turn this assumption on its head by asserting that not only does the climate not push back against warming, it amplifies any warming. There is no evidence for this item, negative feedback are also taken into account, the common denominator of contrarians, besides using the silly term “warmist”, is to always refuse to acknowledge that negative feedbacks are and were investigated and the positives are still there and more are added to the atmosphere. > [@brazil84](#): > > And of course the main “evidence” for this claim is that there exist climate simulations which (1) assume great sensitivity to CO2; and (2) are consistent with past temperatures even if they are unable to predict future temperatures. If a predictor is great at predicting things after the fact, it should not instill much confidence. And this only can be said by denying that there is empirical evidence of the positive feedbacks like water vapor, and paleoclimate gives scientists more confidence, it is not only models as the contrarians continue to repeat with no concept of how wrong they are in assuming only computer models are being used. Is the climate sensitivity less than 2°C? [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/mdoln7hGZYk/maxresdefault.jpg "Is the climate sensitivity less than 2°C?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdoln7hGZYk) -Andrew Dessler from MIT and NASA explains the evidence and the reasons why it is unlikely that we will see the low end of the IPCC predictions.- ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/349 "2013-09-16T17:10:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Mentioning items like the arctic undersea volcanoes that were already looked at, only showed that once again you are relying on sources of information that \*\*never \*\*go back to correct their misinformation. (Why is it that skeptics that get burned by those misinformers \*\*never \*\*complain to those sources for misguiding them?) It is only important to notice that it is then unlikely to be an important item in the IPCC report. > And you are only arguing from ignorance, you need to learn why it is a basic fallacy. > > As pointed before, it is unlikely that the report will be different from what the scientists and organizations that are contributing to the IPCC will make the IPCC tell you a wildly different history regarding the arctic volcanoes. LOL. “_It is UNLIKELY that the report will be different_”. You’re a hoot. “Unlikely” as in - you don’t know but will continue to argue as if the unreleased report has already been verified - unlikely? The IPCC and the MMCO2GW zealots have lost their momentum because they won’t/can’t answer why the IPCC claims failed to match actual global temps. And the admission of “losing” the man-made inputs and computer modeling software didn’t help. _Oops - You can’t prove our “science” is wrong, so everyone must believe us. We wouldn’t get caught lying to the public again_. PUblic confidence in the IPCC’s version of science is lacking. This should be pretty simple, either the global temp is increasing/decreasing/plateaued. AND PROVIDE ACTUAL PROOF. Anyone can understand how a thermometer works. Hotter is up, colder is down. Collecting multiple temp readings from various sources and types of sources, creates a pattern. Extend the patterns back mutiple years/decades/millenium and you have a historic record. It’s not difficult to discover that in-between ice ages, there are periods of global warming. It’s up to the IPCC to, hopefully, come up with a report that explains their past failures to accurately predict future tempuratures. If the IPCC can’t/won’t explain how they failed in the past or what they’ve done to correct their errors, why should the public change it’s mind about the IPCC. ---
**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 16, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/350 "2013-09-16T17:37:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Anyone can understand how a thermometer works. Hotter is up, colder is down. Collecting multiple temp readings from various sources and types of sources, creates a pattern. Extend the patterns back mutiple years/decades/millenium and you have a historic record. It’s not difficult to discover that in-between ice ages, there are periods of global warming. That sort of logic and scientific thinking ignores the real issue, which is it has to be warming because the theory says it has to. Computers show it’s warming, models show it’s warming, analysis of temperatures show warming, so who are you going to trust? Experts or evidence? If you just go with actual data and readings you miss the bigger picture, which is the planet will warm and the oceans will rise and billions will die. You can’t let reality get in the way of the message. ---
**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 16, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/351 "2013-09-16T17:47:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I agree. If a system has been around for a long time, the default assumption should be that if you push on it, it will push back. > > The warmists turn this assumption on its head by asserting that not only does the climate not push back against warming, it amplifies any warming. That might be due to their lack of any real meteorological training, not looking at historic weather and climate, and being fed a stream of false data. If you believe the fake claims, you are operating on the Garbage in-Garbage out principle, and a narrow focus misses the larger issues, like how organisms respond to changes, how heat actually effects the planet, how climate has changed before, and how many factors are still almost complete unknowns. There is a simple problem with the “oceans will rise” belief, because it doesn’t include how the atmospheric/oceanic systems work in the real world. Warmer oceans will melt tidewater glaciers quickly, but at the same time dump larger amounts of snow each year in the high altitude mountains that create the glaciers. High altitude snow is pretty much immune to climate change, it’s the amount of snow, and the amount of soot that determine the accumulation. The climate expert who just runs a computer model has no idea about how clouds and snow actually work, nor do we have good data on the actual ice mass in most of the worlds large reservoirs of fresh water. Not that any of this will matter to the true believes. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/352 "2013-09-16T18:03:53Z")
The Earth IS warming. Even without human input, the Earth would probably be warming right now simply because of where it is in the interglacial cycle. That’s not particularly controversial. And the ‘pause’ in warming is not unprecedented. For example, if you measure from peak values, temperature _declined_ from 1942 until the late 1970’s (i.e. we didn’t hit the peak 1942 temperature again until the late 1970’s, and we went through a period of flat temperatures that lasted a couple of decades). The climate change ‘signal’ is very small compared to annual fluctuations. That means it can be entirely possible for the earth to be warming in the longer term while short-term patterns can show cooling - even over a period of two or three decades. This is an example of how the science can get twisted by both sides. A random fluctuation causing temporary cooling is seized on as a useful political argument, and then repeated by the anti-AGW side as if it’s incontrovertible science. And on the other side, if we get a year of higher than normal extreme weather events, this is seized upon by the pro-AGW side as a useful political argument and then repeated as if it’s scientific fact that the latest tornado or hurricane was caused by global warming. The truth is that in the shorter term of months or years, the behavior of the climate system is hard to discern from random noise. Long term patterns can take decades to establish themselves. That doesn’t stop activists on both sides from exploiting the randomness when it happens to move in a direction favorable to their arguments. ---
**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 16, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/353 "2013-09-16T18:16:18Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The Earth IS warming. Even without human input, the Earth would probably be warming right now simply because of where it is in the interglacial cycle. That’s not particularly controversial. Actually that is very controversial. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/354 "2013-09-16T18:27:21Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That might be due to their lack of any real meteorological training, not looking at historic weather and climate, and being fed a stream of false data. If you believe the fake claims, you are operating on the Garbage in-Garbage out principle, and a narrow focus misses the larger issues, like how organisms respond to changes, how heat actually effects the planet, how climate has changed before, and how many factors are still almost complete unknowns. While I agree with the general thrust of what you’re saying, I want to point out that this argument kind of suggests that we can predict the climate so long as we figure out what the ‘unknowns’ are. This is the reductionist argument that climate is a machine, and once all the parts are figured out it can be predicted. In complex systems, this is not true. Complex systems are not like machines that can be understood by reverse engineering them or breaking them down into their constituent parts. Complex systems are networks of interactions, and the behavior of the system emerges from those interactions. There is no component that is ‘responsible’ for some aspect of the system’s behavior - there’s only the system, and any part of it is just one of millions of inputs. This is my problem with Gigobuster’s claim that we know about the positive and negative feedbacks, and that we know what role water vapor will play in the overall feedback of the system. In truth, all we can hope to know is how water vapor will interact with the next iteration of the system, and only its primary interaction mechanism. We don’t know how the system will adapt to it, and how the next iteration of the system will interact with the changes caused by this iteration. For all we know, water vapor could have positive feedback now, but the changes it introduces to the climate system will result in even stronger negative feedbacks 50 years from now through some series of complicated second and third order interactions. Maybe water vapor causes more rain in some parts of the world, which changes the pattern of fresh water uptake into the ocean, which changes ocean currents. Or maybe it’s even more complicated than that, and changes to the climate system have bizarre effects that result in negative feedback in ways no one could possible figure out because the chain of interactions is so long and convoluted. And because the systems adapts, the next time the same thing happens the response may be totally different. Our study of other complex systems should give us a lot of humility when it comes to claims of understanding of the climate system. Economics deals with complex systems, and although we’ve had hundreds of years of scientific study of economic behavior we still can’t predict what’s going to happen in the future - at all. Despite the huge financial incentives involved, we still haven’t figured out how to predict stock movements. In biology, ecosystems are complex. And we know enough about the risks of predicting and trying to control those systems that we’ve learned some humility. We tried to stop forest fires until we realized that the ecosystem had already adapted to regular fires and stopping them is a bad idea. We’ve tried to control animal populations by injecting predators, only to find all sorts of unintended consequences through bizarre interactions. Hell, we can’t even explain how ant colonies behave. We can simulate them and do a damned fine job of making a simulated colony, just like we can simulate weather. But those simulations don’t help at all in terms of predicting the movements of an ant population. And so it goes. Complexity science is a fairly new field and mathematically difficult, so lots of working scientists don’t quite have their heads aroundit . But a more fundamental problem is that complex systems are not amenable to manipulation, so people don’t _want_ to believe them. Especially not the people who see it as their job to ‘scientifically manage’ the world. They want the world to be a machine they can understand, because they want to be the ones pulling on the levers to achieve the ‘right’ outcome. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/355 "2013-09-16T18:31:12Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That might be due to their lack of any real meteorological training, not looking at historic weather and climate, and being fed a stream of false data. I think it has more to do with wishful thinking. Why would someone want to believe so fervently in a doom and gloom scenario? Well it seems like a pretty common human belief, from the peak oil guys, to survivalists, to a lot of fundamentalist religious types. People seem to derive a smug feeling of superiority from being aware of the true sh\*\*storm to come when other people are not. ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/356 "2013-09-16T19:03:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > For all we know, water vapor could have positive feedback now, but the changes it introduces to the climate system will result in even stronger negative feedbacks 50 years from now through some series of complicated second and third order interactions. Maybe water vapor causes more rain in some parts of the world, which changes the pattern of fresh water uptake into the ocean, which changes ocean currents. Or maybe it’s even more complicated than that, and changes to the climate system have bizarre effects that result in negative feedback in ways no one could possible figure out because the chain of interactions is so long and convoluted. And because the systems adapts, the next time the same thing happens the response may be totally different. This is once again relying on an argument from ignorance, as pointed before, for all we know so far (as the research from Dressler and others point out) the water vapor feedback is not negative. After so many years those items causing the negative feedback you are assuming, with little to no evidence, should not be hard to come by, but they are. ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/357 "2013-09-16T19:13:35Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > While I agree with the general thrust of what you’re saying, I want to point out that this argument kind of suggests that we can predict the climate so long as we figure out what the ‘unknowns’ are. I’m not suggesting that. As you point out, it’s huge and complex and we just don’t know. > [@brazil84](#): > > I think it has more to do with wishful thinking. Why would someone want to believe so fervently in a doom and gloom scenario? Yeah, and it’s been that way for a long time. ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/358 "2013-09-16T19:16:10Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > PUblic confidence in the IPCC’s version of science is lacking. This should be pretty simple, either the global temp is increasing/decreasing/plateaued. AND PROVIDE ACTUAL PROOF. Anyone can understand how a thermometer works. Hotter is up, colder is down. Collecting multiple temp readings from various sources and types of sources, creates a pattern. Extend the patterns back mutiple years/decades/millenium and you have a historic record. It’s not difficult to discover that in-between ice ages, there are periods of global warming. And we hit once again the #1 Myth. > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. > > A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can’t be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case. > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they’re in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/359 "2013-09-16T19:19:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is once again relying on an argument from ignorance, as pointed before, for all we know so far (as the research from Dressler and others point out) the water vapor feedback is not negative. After so many years those items causing the negative feedback you are assuming, with little to no evidence, should not be hard to come by, but they are. It is NOT an argument from ignorance. As I said, the first-order interaction of water vapor could certainly provide a positive feedback - it’s just that we don’t know what else it might do, and how the climate will respond after it mutates and changes in response to that change. There are a lot of scientists resistant to the implications of complexity theory in their own domain, because it says that there are some things we can’t know through reductionism and experiment. That doesn’t make it any less true. I suggest you read a bit about complexity theory. And not through the lens of ‘climate 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 16, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/360 "2013-09-16T19:19:38Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I’m not suggesting that. As you point out, it’s huge and complex and we just don’t know. > > Yeah, and it’s been that way for a long time. Once again, not what the scientists report, it is complex, but the overall behavior can be understood. Enough to report that there is not much there on evidence for a negative feedback from clouds or other items to stop the warming observed. [![](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. [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=17) [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=19)