# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 25
**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 29, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/481 "2013-09-29T15:44:11Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (I shortened your post) > > It’s also totally and completely reasonable to wait for the new-and-as-of-yet-unvetted IPCC report to be officially released AND vetted by ANY independent group that is given access to the man-made inputs and software used for the IPCC Modeling. > > Or the IPCC can refuse to share it’s data and processes with those it deems unworthy of questioning MMCO2GW, in which case, the doubts about the validity of the IPCC “claims” will continue. Unfortunately this is also an argument made from ignorance. [http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ddc\_exist.html](http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ddc_exist.html) > [@](#): > > Why does the DDC exist? > > The IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC) was established in 1998, following a recommendation by the IPCC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis (TGICA), to facilitate the timely distribution of a consistent set of up-to-date scenarios of changes in climate and related environmental and socio-economic factors for use in climate impact and adaptation assessment. While impact researchers are free to use whatever simulations are appropriate for their studies, it is hoped that the wide accessibility to these recent scenarios, and the knowledge that other research groups are probably applying them as well, may persuade analysts to adopt some or all of the scenarios held in the DDC. One of the clear objectives of the Centre is that new studies making use of these scenarios can feed into the IPCC assessment process. > > Data are being provided by the DDC over the World Wide Web. All research groups supplying datasets have agreed to these being in the public domain. The data are provided free of charge, but all users are requested to register to ensure both that the data are used for public scientific research rather than for commercial applications and also that they can be informed of possible modifications, additions and other new developments at the DDC. Yes, since 1998, of course one should wonder why the usual point I make is ignored: When are the ones following the contrarian media will take their sources to task for not informing them properly? ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/482 "2013-09-29T16:06:44Z")
So, it is evident that there is no year (apparently none in the 20th century at least) from which to start a statistically significant long-term trend that could indicate a pause, none; not even as a purely theoretical hypothesis. This is a unique occurence on the SDMB. We can ask “what if gravity suddenly became 9.5m/s2?” or “what if Obama were actually a Kenyan muslim” and people would, albeit with tons of provisos, try to get an answer. Heck, you can get deeply religious, 0%-chance-God-doesn’t-exist, like me to answer “what if Jesus didn’t die in the cross?”. However, in the AGW world, even considering that a pause is possible, no matter how improbable it may be, is taboo. No number, no year, no condition can exist; the only thing that s certain is that 1998 is 1000000000% cherry-picked-by-Hitler-Stalin-Mao-and-PolPot wrong. Even pointing out that saying that a year is wrong means that another is right is the Satan’s spawn. Let’s see, one more time. I’ll ammend my question once more to see if any AGWers finally commit or simply say nothing or simply do a wall-of-text or chain of links. Since it’s been mentioned several times in several AGW threads that 1998 is an evil, oil-industry-shill,denier-of-death, puppy-kicking cherry-picked year to show the pause, I wonder, for the sixth time on this thread I ask: What’s the non-Niña, non-big-volcano year that is OK? (i.e., the year that would show that temperatures have not increased or have decreased from THAT year to now and that would not be considered cherry-picked and that could be considered that start of a scientifically and statistically significant long-term trend, not a cutoff point but the start of the trend even if such a trend is either almost scientifically impossible or even if real not denying to even-longer-term warming trend. It’s really, really basic) (BTW, the answer is a four-digit number, not unrelated quotes or even fully-related ones) OR (taking \*\*Brazil’s \*\*idea) If starting today (2013-09-29) and for the next 100 years ALL datasets without exception show that temperatures have decreased 0.5° despite CO2 rising up to at least 450 PPM, would that trend be considered a pause or decrease even if AGW theory remains true? (BTW, the answer is YES/NO) Providing copiuos link as to why sceptics are wrong or what the IPCC says is not the answer ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/483 "2013-09-29T16:14:56Z")
BTW The IPPC purpose besides recommending policy is to actually vet the recent scientific research done, and it is vetted by contributing scientists. The reality is that I was correct, the report was not going to be enough for contrarians and now the goal posts are moving to demand that others look at the data to accept the report, seeing that the contrarians already had access to the data from the research groups themselves even before the IPCC used them, the realization should be that deception is now the main reason the contrarian media specially when they also refuse the research from independent researchers that looked at data that the IPCC also used before and contributors to the current report also noticed and clearly used to raise the confidence levels in the new report: > **[Opinion | The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (Published 2012)](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0)** > > The average land temperature on earth has risen 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years — essentially all of it caused by human emission of greenhouses gases. > [@](#): > > CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. > > My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. > > These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural. > [@](#): > > Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little. > > How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase. ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/484 "2013-09-29T16:32:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, it is evident that there is no year (apparently none in the 20th century at least) from which to start a statistically significant long-term trend that could indicate a pause, none; not even as a purely theoretical hypothesis. Not accurate at all, I already mentioned the pause seen in the 50s-70s that caused the popular media to claim the scientists reported that an ice age was coming, not true as a super majority of the papers reported that warming was coming after that pause in surface temperatures. As for your robotic requests, once again as [Gavin Schmidt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt) reported, one has to see first temperatures going back to previous decades and remain there for a couple to make that a dent on the theories. One big problem for your robotic request is that it omits the ocean temperature rise. So once we do take the oceans into account then one can say that yes, a pause is possible, but we are not there yet, the limited range of the surface temperature was already predicted to “pause” and this has happened in the recent past already. So only by cherry picking the surface temperature is that the popular and contrarian media gets “something” meaningful to use to mislead others. ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/485 "2013-09-29T16:35:48Z")
So, that’s another long-winded, self-congratulatory post without any answer value. We ALL know your belifes and the studies and the Sks links. Why can’t you commit to either answer? Answer for question 1: A four-digit number Answer fot question 2: Yes or No. ---
**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 29, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/486 "2013-09-29T16:51:55Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, that’s another long-winded, self-congratulatory post without any answer value. > We ALL know your belifes and the studies and the Sks links. > Why can’t you commit to either answer? > > Answer for question 1: A four-digit number Any 4 digit year that starts a cooling trend based on what contrarian Joe Bastardy promised: > **[Joe Bastardi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi)** > > Joe Bastardi (born July 18, 1955) is a professional meteorologist and weather forecaster. He is a frequent guest on TV news shows. Bastardi is an outspoken denier of human-induced global warming whose public statements frequently contradict the scientific consensus on climate change. > Bastardi was born in Providence, Rhode Island. He spent his childhood moving frequently, first to Texas in 1960, then to Somers Point, New Jersey in 1965. He enrolled at Penn State University, where he was a member ... > [@](#): > > Bastardi expects that over the next 30 years, the global average temperature will return to levels seen in the late-1970s due to a so-called “triple-crown of cooling” comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanism.[13] He actually promised that the big drop in temperature to those levels should be seen already, instead all his conditions are not happening. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Answer fot question 2: Yes or No. Yes. And it has to be pointed out that I already answered that, but keep on telling others that you are not reading cites and posts, it is not a problem I have. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/487 "2013-09-29T16:55:27Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, that’s another long-winded, self-congratulatory post without any answer value. > We ALL know your belifes and the studies and the Sks links. > Why can’t you commit to either answer? > > Answer for question 1: A four-digit number > Answer fot question 2: Yes or No. This is a great post. I wish more shills and contrarians would post at this level of drunkeness. Really adds value. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/488 "2013-09-29T17:23:43Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > This is a great post. I wish more shills and contrarians would post at this level of drunkeness. Lol, nice ad homenim attack. Anything to avoid responding to the actual point. And the point is of course a reasonable one. In deciding whether global warming has “paused” there needs to be a baseline year. I think it’s reasonable to use 1998 since it is the most recent high and it’s been long enough that if the warmists were right, one would have expected another high temp since then. But if you think 1998 is a bad choice, then what baseline year do you think should be chosen to determine if warming has paused? It’s a simple, reasonable question but I highly doubt you will answer it. ---
**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 29, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/489 "2013-09-29T17:51:39Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Lol, nice ad homenim attack. Anything to avoid responding to the actual point. > > And the point is of course a reasonable one. > > In deciding whether global warming has “paused” there needs to be a baseline year. I think it’s reasonable to use 1998 since it is the most recent high and it’s been long enough that if the warmists were right, one would have expected another high temp since then. > > But if you think 1998 is a bad choice, then what baseline year do you think should be chosen to determine if warming has paused? > > It’s a simple, reasonable question but I highly doubt you will answer it. I guess he continues to ignore the posts. ---
**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 29, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/490 "2013-09-29T18:17:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I think it’s reasonable to use 1998 since it is the most recent high and it’s been long enough that if the warmists were right, one would have expected another high temp since then. GISSTEMP says 2005 is the hottest year ever. ---
**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 29, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/491 "2013-09-29T18:43:55Z")
Correcting a previous post as I ran out edit time: BTW The IPPC purpose, besides recommending policy, is to actually vet the recent scientific research already done, and it is vetted once again by contributing scientists. The reality is that I was correct, the report was not going to be enough for contrarians and now the goal posts are moving to demand that others look at the data to accept the report. The contrarians already had access to the data from the research groups themselves even before the IPCC did use them. The realization should be that deception is now the main reason for the contrarian media to continue. Specially when they also reject the research from independent researchers that looked at data that the IPCC also used before. The contributors to the current IPCC report also noticed independent research like the Berkeley one, and research like that was clearly used to raise the confidence levels in the new report: > **[Opinion | The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (Published 2012)](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0)** > > The average land temperature on earth has risen 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years — essentially all of it caused by human emission of greenhouses gases. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/492 "2013-09-29T21:08:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > GISSTEMP says 2005 is the hottest year ever. Lol, let me amend my previous statement: I think it’s reasonable to use 1998 since, according to most of the leading indexes of global surface temperatures, it is the most recent high and it’s been long enough that if the warmists were right, one would have expected another high temp (according to the leading indexes of global surface temperatures) since then. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/493 "2013-09-29T21:50:39Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, that’s another long-winded, self-congratulatory post without any answer value. > [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > This is a great post. I wish more shills and contrarians would post at this level of drunkeness. Really adds value. There is enough hostility in this thread without personal attacks. Back off. [/Moderating] ---
**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 30, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/494 "2013-09-30T00:41:06Z")
:smack::smack::smack::smack: I missed the YES for #2. [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=24)