# 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:** 6
**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 1, 2013, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/101 "2013-09-01T07:05:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Unless there is the “doom” the rest of the report is pointless. Can you imagine AR5 saying “_sea levels will rise just like they have done in the previous 200 years, maybe a bit more and warming in the 21st century will be equal or less than the 20th_”? Or at least saying “_the whole sensitivity thing: we ain’t about the number and even the sign of many forcings; don’t even start on the final sensitivity number or ask why our number make climate an incredibly unstable, positive-feedback crazy system_”? For that’s the truth * * * I’m never sure if I’m supposed to be ignorant, willfully ignorant, or evil for not drinking the kool-aid. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/102 "2013-09-01T07:39:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I guess losing or having to spend a lot of money on coastal cities is pointless. post 98. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/103 "2013-09-01T09:12:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is ridiculous, the fact that humanity will not end does not mean that there is a lot of problems that can be less troublesome or costly if we act now rather than later. I’m assuming you meant “are not” instead of “is”. Couldn’t it also be that the problems are less troublesome or costly if dealt with later? Think of how fast technology evolves. Look at the human genome project. It took three billion dollars and thirteen years to complete, finishing a decade ago. Do any of us think, if it had never been done then but was started now, that it would take longer and/or cost more? I think it’s entirely possible that whatever work needs to be done to protect coastal cities fifty years from now could be done by self-replicating, solar powered nanites at essentially zero cost. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/104 "2013-09-01T12:46:43Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) > > (The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC) > > You have a YouTube! You didn’t say you had a YouTube. That changes everything. Now there is NO reason for the IPCC to release anymore reports. The science must be settled. There must be an actual concensus. :smack: LOL. Thank you for linking to that YouTube, **GIGObuster**. I think it does an excellent job of explaining some of the science, especially the change in Earth’s temperature over eons. And thank you also, **doorhinge**. It was the excitement about the YouTube shown by such an erudite Doper as yourself which led me to click on the link in the first place. ---
**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 1, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/105 "2013-09-01T14:22:16Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > post 98. All the links already posted. Because your reply only shows that you have not read them. When a third of the human population would die if you allow a fad to grow unchecked we did act. In essence you are saying that because AGW will not mean doom to humanity it will be OK to let the 1/3 be. Well, of course the “fad” I’m talking here is smoking tobacco and you really do sound like the think thanks like the Heartland Institute, that by pure “coincidence” also deny that our emissions should concern us. ---
**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 1, 2013, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/106 "2013-09-01T14:43:09Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I’m assuming you meant “are not” instead of “is”. > > Couldn’t it also be that the problems are less troublesome or costly if dealt with later? Think of how fast technology evolves. Look at the human genome project. It took three billion dollars and thirteen years to complete, finishing a decade ago. Do any of us think, if it had never been done then but was started now, that it would take longer and/or cost more? > > I think it’s entirely possible that whatever work needs to be done to protect coastal cities fifty years from now could be done by self-replicating, solar powered nanites at essentially zero cost. And I would like a pony too. Really, I have lived enough to remember that while it is true technology does accelerate, virtually all rates of the adoption of new technology fail to come when predicted. I do remember reading in the 80’s that full wall size TVs were going to appear in the 90’s and affordable too. I would not be surprised that it did, but not at mass market levels and affordable, so far the sizes an average household can get them now are impressive, but wall sized ones are still an arm and a leg. And I’m also aware that nanotechnology on the field will run into the same troubles as genetically engineered food in the wild, even though it has been shown to be safe there are issues with GMOs and most people are voting against it, it is unlikely that the testing and safeguards and modeling\* will cost us zero. So you need to read the complete cite to the second link I made in post #64 to the economist that reports that indeed it is much, much expensive to wait to act. \*Here is the time to mention that many contrarians out there do not realize the huge contradiction of claiming that climate models are useless, because when geoengineering -with nanotech or not- is considered as a solution and available (No matter how you cut it , we will have to pay for it) it will depend also on climate scientists, their modeling and the data collection that is disparaged now by contrarians to check if the application of the solution on the wild will be safe for us. ---
**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 1, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/107 "2013-09-01T16:21:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Hierarchy of Global Warming Denial:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism) Can you show a single instance of it happening? I mean, I’m sure you can find that Bob said 1, Anne said 2, Shaniqua said 3, Kim said 4, and so on; but can you find one person changing his stance in that way? ---
**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 1, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/108 "2013-09-01T16:35:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Can you show a single instance of it happening? > > I mean, I’m sure you can find that Bob said 1, Anne said 2, Shaniqua said 3, Kim said > 4, and so on; but can you find one person changing his stance in that way? You need to check what a sliding scale is, it does not mean that all subjects are following that precise evolution. Most do start at different levels of that scale. Like Conservative, Republican Scientist Barry Bickmore: > **[How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/how-to-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/)** > > I gave a talk called “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” for the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, … > [@](#): > > I gave a talk called “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” for the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University. For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, I am a Republican and a geochemist who, until a few years ago, was quite skeptical about the idea that humans are causing significant climate change. > > In the presentation, I briefly talked about how I had made the transition from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. I then discussed how it is that people like me can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change. ---
**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 1, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/109 "2013-09-01T16:45:54Z")
Of course, warmists have always had the same stance. (insert **any** climate/weather related event) has been/is being/will be caused by ©AGW/CC. More/less/equal rain/snow/cloud/tornadoes/hurricanes/drought/flood/etc all agree, always. Also, weather is not climate except when it is. ---
**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 1, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/110 "2013-09-01T17:02:53Z")
Meltdowns are not pretty. In any case, it remains a straw man to claim that scientists are telling us that global warming is causing extreme weather, if you had paid attention currently the evidence says that the extreme weather incidents are made worse by global warming. Going forwards the worrisome thing is that with the changing weather patterns talk of the warming eventually being a big factor in the cause of those extremes can happen. > **[Is it now possible to blame extreme weather on global warming? | Leo Hickman](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/jul/03/weather-extreme-blame-global-warming)** > > Wildfires, heatwaves and storms witnessed in the US are 'what global warming looks like', say climate scientists Once again, more data is needed for the causation connection, but there is already plenty of evidence for the worsening of them when mother nature toss them at us. As mentioned, uncertainty goes both ways, any “we should not do anything” skeptic needs to take also into consideration that on top of the most likely results like the rise of the oceans or the acidification of them we could get, besides worse weather, more incidents of it. ---
**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 1, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/111 "2013-09-01T18:14:06Z")
Nothing like, in practical terms, meaningless distinctions Also, nothing like trying to blame one variable on a very complex system. It only works if you already “know” the answer. I’d love to see how anyone in the history of humanity can see any (extreme) weather event and glean how it actually “should’ve” been, without human internvention. BTW: Longest time without a landfalling hurricane in the US in over 100 years, possibly more. ---
**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 1, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/112 "2013-09-01T18:35:06Z")
As you even acknowledged before you are still refusing to accept what most scientists and scientific organizations have to say on the subject. By your own word you told us also that you will be vindicated. [Gowron from Star Trek]Perhaps, but not today.[/GFST] As pointed even on the lasts posts you are wrong on what a sliding scale is, wrong on all your points on post #109, it is just magical thinking that leads one to repeat nonsense and expect that it will make it real. You have no good sources or evidence, no good citations, only silly rhetoric as we have seen in all past threads. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/113 "2013-09-02T06:51:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …Of course as you \*\*never \*\*had a good explanation why we could not follow similar solutions that government and industry applied with issues like this one as we did in the past with bad water in the cities, the phosphate contamination by detergents on rivers and lakes, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc. one can continue to dismiss your say so’s. LOL. The difference is that bad water, phosphate contamination, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc could all be proven. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/114 "2013-09-02T08:15:18Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > LOL. The difference is that bad water, phosphate contamination, ozone depletion, acid rain, etc could all be proven. Hey, 100% ignorance in one post. there are more than 100 years of science on this, if you had bothered to look at, and constantly tested BTW. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@](#): > > In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. Much more at the link, if you dare to challenge your ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/115 "2013-09-02T08:25:36Z")
The lesson to take home: the real Galileos of this science brought more evidence in the 30s-50s to change the minds of all the scientists that **knew already** that CO2 caused warming, but they thought that the massive increase of the gases that was man made would not be a problem, it was found that it was. And so it is that nowadays there are virtually no scientific organizations that report that this is a fraud, the few groups that do are not scientific or discredited contrarians. So get us a cite from a scientific org reporting that there is no evidence, because so far it is just your ignorant words against history and science. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/116 "2013-09-02T15:43:18Z")
Isn’t the methane released from the ocean going to do way more than all the CO2, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/117 "2013-09-02T16:28:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Hey, 100% ignorance in one post. > > there are more than 100 years of science on this, if you had bothered to look at, and constantly tested BTW. > > [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > Much more at the link, if you dare to challenge your ignorance. LOL. And your repeated insults makes you a first class asshole. So what? That doesn’t convince anyone to change their position on man-made CO2 causing global warming, which is the object of the debate. Your insults still suggest an act of desperation. Peter Hadfield’s “Snowball Earth” was covered with ice. The ice changed to water and gas, land formed, the land mass divided, massive areas were again covered with ice, the ice retreated, the ice advanced, the ice retreated, the ice advanced, etc. There’s a history of repeated global warming and global cooling. All occured without any human input. Shocking ain’t it. Since the last ice age, the “global” temp has (Surprise!) increased. The IPCC and it’s followers put their faith in the man-made inputs created for the computer modeling that was the basis for their claims. Man-made inputs that weren’t shared with the organizations that allegedly peer reviewed the IPCC’s work. “That sounds plausible”, isn’t a very scientific review of their work. If they had shared those man-made inputs, anyone could use them to discover where the IPCC had made it’s repeated misatkes. (hehehe). The IPCC claims they have a new-and-improved report that, hopefully, will be MORE CONVINCING than their last efforts have been. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. \*Dear IPCC, Will your new and improved report prove that the GLOBAL temp is increasing at any of the rates you’ve suggested in the past? Or will you provide new rates of increase? Since your IPCC “findings” been suspect, suspicious, and wrong in the past, how will you correct the level of mistrust that has created in your organization? Is it possible for you to show conclusively that CO2 levels are causing the GLOBAL temp to decrease and increase? Will you finally prove conclusively that man-made CO2 is causing the GLOBAL temp to decrease and increase? Thank you for your time, Your devoted servant, Doorhinge.\* p.s. I’d wait for the next IPCC report to actually be published before defending it’s findings. They just might get something wrong again. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/118 "2013-09-02T17:29:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > LOL. And your repeated insults makes you a first class asshole. You can’t insult other posters here. **GIGObuster** commented on your post. This is a warning not to do this again. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/119 "2013-09-02T17:40:35Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > LOL. And your repeated insults makes you a first class asshole. So what? That doesn’t convince anyone to change their position on man-made CO2 causing global warming, which is the object of the debate. Your insults still suggest an act of desperation. Nope, the desperation happens to the one that does not even know the difference between an ignorant an an asshole. I’m an ignorant on many mathematical things and many grammar conventions. **I however do welcome when other dopers let me know how off base I am on those subjects because I do want to learn.** > [@doorhinge](#): > > Peter Hadfield’s “Snowball Earth” was covered with ice. The ice changed to water and gas, land formed, the land mass divided, massive areas were again covered with ice, the ice retreated, the ice advanced, the ice retreated, the ice advanced, etc. There’s a history of repeated global warming and global cooling. All occured without any human input. Shocking ain’t it. And he even explained why that does not help your point, you only evaded the conclusion that even the scientists are reporting, that that is evidence of the actual sensibility of what would happen when CO2 levels increase, **man made CO2 and prehistoric CO2 do the same stuff** , unless CO2 has reformed his ways the past tells us about the risks of not controlling the huge amount we are releasing now. [rest of silly complaint to the IPCC cut] And this is more of a refusal to look at the science, and actually the previous IPCC reports, they point at the evidence that is also used by virtually all scientific organizations that are relevant to the issue, as mentioned before, it is your lack of evidence and cites and support what shows to all who is getting desperate, and it is specifically the denier media and the groups that finance them. > **[Scientific consensus on climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)** > > There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,: 8 : 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,: 10–11  with a signif Nearly... > **[Climate change](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism)** > > Climate change, also known as anthropogenic (or human-caused) global warming,\[note 2\] is the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. Global-warming denialism refers to claims — mostly funded by the... > [@](#): > > A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus: > > ``` > National Academy of Sciences (NAS) > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) > NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) > Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) > The Royal Society of the UK (RS) > Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) > And many more. > > ``` > [@](#): > > National or international scientific bodies that reject anthropogenic global warming: > > [Tumbleweeds rolling in the wind] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/120 "2013-09-02T18:01:33Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Isn’t the methane released from the ocean going to do way more than all the CO2, anyway? There was a recent scare regarding that, but it was not about the ocean one but the one in the permafrost areas of the planet, but the scientists at Realclimate (and yes, at least one of that group contributes to the IPCC) pointed at the flaws on that report. (Notice here, that many contrarians refuse to acknowledge that scientists are not going for the alarm setting all the time, they cool down even reports that for the contrarians “it should help the scientists get all that grant money from the government to seed fear” :rolleyes: ) It is still a concern and the scientists also do take the current expected release of methane into account as part of why that low estimate many “skeptics” expect the future warming to be as flawed, but there is still no good evidence to worry a lot about a massive methane release. To avoid that possibility of massive releases of methane in the future where the temperature is increasing more, one has to control the thermostat knob that we have available, and that is to reduce the CO2 emissions as soon as possible. > **[RealClimate: Much ado about methane](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/)** > > RealClimate: Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it also has an awesome power to really get people worked up, compared to other equally frightening pieces of the climate story. What methane are we talking about? The largest methane pools that... > [@](#): > > When methane is released chronically, over decades, the concentration in the atmosphere will rise to a new equilibrium value. It won’t keep rising indefinitely, like CO2 would, because methane degrades while CO2 essentially just accumulates. Methane degrades into CO2, in fact, so in simulations I did (Archer and Buffett, 2005) the radiative forcing from the elevated methane concentration throughout a long release was about matched by the radiative forcing from the extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere from the methane as a carbon source. In the figure below, the dashed lines are from a simulation of a fossil fuel CO2 release, and the solid lines are the same model but with an added methane hydrate feedback. The radiative forcing from the methane combines the CH4 itself which only persists during the time of the methane release, plus the added CO2 in the atmosphere, which persists throughout the simulation of 100,000 years. > [@](#): > > Could methane be a point of no return? > > Actually, releasing CO2 is a point of no return if anything is. The only way back to a natural climate in anything like our lifetimes would be to anthropogenically extract CO2 from the atmosphere. The CO2 that has been absorbed into the oceans would degas back to the atmosphere to some extent, so we’d have to clean that up too. And if hydrates or peats contributed some extra carbon into the mix, that would also have to be part of the bargain, like paying interest on a loan. > > Conclusion > > It’s the CO2, friend. [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=5) [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=7)