# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/141 "2013-09-03T09:39:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Continuing to be wrong is not a thing to aspire. > > The average guy is telling us that there is reason to do something, it is the political leadership (virtually all Republican) that denies even the concern of the people. > • A large majority of Americans (87%, down 5 percentage points since Fall 2012) say the president and the Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a “very high” (26%), “high” (32%), or medium priority (28%). Few say it should be a low priority (12%). > > • Most Americans (70%, down 7 points since Fall 2012) say global warming should be a “very high” (16%), “high” (26%), or “medium priority” (29%) for the president and Congress. Three in ten (28%) say it should be a low priority. > > [http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Policy-Support-April-2013](http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Policy-Support-April-2013) Perhaps I did not put it very well. We ALL want to do SOMETHING. Substitute “Eliminate world hunger/war/poverty/inequality” as your Great Cause, and ask yourself what percent of the population would also want to make those a High Priority for Congress. It’s like a religion, right? We ALL want to be Saved when we listen to the Revivalist. But then we turn right back to our wicked ways. Unfortunately, that Something boils down to Congress doing it, or Prioritizing the Problem, or crap like that. It does not boil down to Al Gore and me taking the bus, living in apartments with ten people, or giving up my personal comforts. Nor does it boil down to windmills in my backyard, nuclear plants in my county or solar panels on my neighbors roof, particularly if any of those things are going to actually cost me lifestyle. On another note, GIGOBuster: A second problem I see is that the list of Bad Effects doesn’t seem very frightening. Sea Rise! Dead Polar Bears! Hurricanes! Ethiopian Drought! [What are the effects of global warming?](http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/) I feel like Alarmists need a better list of Bad Consequences Soon. For those who do convert from Denialist to Alarmist, I sort of agree with the general progression you typically outline, but I think one thing slowing the conversion rate for Everyday Joe is that the consequences of AGW don’t seem all that horrible or unmanageable…I don’t see the conversion from “AGW is real” to “AGW is bad” happening at a very personal level for most folks. Would you consider listing your top three Bad Consequences that have you the most unnerved, along with the putative timelines? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/142 "2013-09-03T09:57:23Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Perhaps I did not put it very well. > > We ALL want to do SOMETHING. Substitute “Eliminate world hunger/war/poverty/inequality” as your Great Cause, and ask yourself what percent of the population would also want to make those a High Priority for Congress. > > It’s like a religion, right? We ALL want to be Saved when we listen to the Revivalist. :rolleyes: Once again, accusations of what the science reports and economists recommend (and I’m mostly a messenger, so killing me is also a fallacy from your part) as being a religion is a boiler plate tactic of pseudo-scientists. It is indeed like a godwing here. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But then we turn right back to our wicked ways. > > Unfortunately, that Something boils down to Congress doing it, or Prioritizing the Problem, or crap like that. It does not boil down to Al Gore and me taking the bus, living in apartments with ten people, or giving up my personal comforts. Nor does it boil down to windmills in my backyard, nuclear plants in my county or solar panels on my neighbors roof, particularly if any of those things are going to actually cost me lifestyle. > > On another note, GIGOBuster: A second problem I see is that the list of Bad Effects doesn’t seem very frightening. Sea Rise! Dead Polar Bears! Hurricanes! Ethiopian Drought! [What are the effects of global warming?](http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/) > > I feel like Alarmists need a better list of Bad Consequences Soon. For those who do convert from Denialist to Alarmist, I sort of agree with the general progression you typically outline, but I think one thing slowing the conversion rate for Everyday Joe is that the consequences of AGW don’t seem all that horrible or unmanageable…I don’t see the conversion from “AGW is real” to “AGW is bad” happening at a very personal level for most folks. > > Would you consider listing your top three Bad Consequences that have you the most unnerved, along with the putative timelines? Actually the reply to that and the Godwin was made in the pit, just the same as made to FX Mastermind: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16623194&postcount=151](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16623194&postcount=151) ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/143 "2013-09-03T10:10:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually the reply to that and the Godwin was made in the pit, just the same as made to FX Mastermind… I followed your link to the Pit thread but did not see your top 3 personal concerns for the consequences of AGW, along with their putative timelines. Please do not suggest following links that do not answer a simple and clear request. It’s fine to say, “I don’t have a simple and clear reply” if you cannot articulate a cogent response. Are you able to list your concerns, please? I’m hoping for a plain response and not some sort of oblique reply. You post a great deal on the subject of AGW, and I assume you are able to clearly and succinctly lay out an elevator pitch of your top three concerns. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/144 "2013-09-03T10:13:49Z")
Once again the reply is in the pit, follow the link to the last post: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=699678&page=4](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=699678&page=4) ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/145 "2013-09-03T10:22:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is indeed like a godwing here. A little help, please. At a bare minimum I need to be able to understand the post… Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? ---
**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 3, 2013, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/146 "2013-09-03T10:26:35Z")
Not much of a response, **GIGO**. How about actually making a substantive response? If Americans say they think it’s important to do something about climate change, but get grumpy when gas prices go up, what does that tell you? And what _are_ your three most significant fears about the future if nothing is done? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually there are 3 graphs, all referring to the 1990, 1995 and 2003 reports, what is very important is to look at the red line in all the graphs, once the temperature of 5 data sets is used one can see that the actual temperature is higher than from the cite Magiver used. Can you just link again, or tell me what post number to find this in? I did not see anything like that and I would like to see it. > [@](#): > > And you say so here is even less of a signal against it, think about it. Sorry, that’s too cryptic for me. Can you spell it out? And what about my earlier question about the methane release from the oceans? I saw no response to that. ETA: Some of us are not “concern trolls”, not “denialists”, but are genuinely on the fence. Your evasions don’t help convince us. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/147 "2013-09-03T10:30:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Once again the reply is in the pit, follow the link to the last post: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=699678&page=4](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=699678&page=4) I do not know where I have been “branded a troll by the moderators” although over the years certain moderators have found some of my posts distasteful to them. If that ever happened in an AGW thread, I’ve forgotten it. Can you remind me where? You can link directly to a post, btw, [like this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16630452&postcount=165) In any case, here is the reply you reference: (by GIGOBuster) \*"Just a note Chief: Last time you did get to be branded a troll by the moderators, I already gave my concerns before on that thread, the fact that you forget and just go full JAQ on me is just reaching for the trolling rhetoric. The subject is the IPCC not my concerns regarding the main points on how to deal with the issue (that I offered before) nor your stupid tricks to continue to ignore the evidence presented and the advise from the economists already linked too."\* I am unable to find your top three concerns and timelines anywhere. Can you help, or not? I’m not asking you what can be done by each of us (you will recall that you were unable to answer that question in the past) but what your personal top three concerns of AGW are, along with the timelines related to them. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/148 "2013-09-03T10:49:54Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Not much of a response, **GIGO**. How about actually making a substantive response? If Americans say they think it’s important to do something about climate change, but get grumpy when gas prices go up, what does that tell you? Not much because you are missing the point. Americans are expecting the government to make it fair to all, and no one likes to pay their water and sewer bill but then again it is priceless to not have cholera epidemics. Likewise you are describing the tragedy of the commons regarding the control of emissions, the taxes have to be set as incentives to move to alternatives. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > And what _are_ your three most significant fears about the future if nothing is done? :rolleyes: Already mentioned in the OP and in the thread, Ocean rise, Ocean acidification and intensification of extreme weather events. You see the problem, is that it is not limited to just 3 items, all of them can lead to other issues like forced emigration and warfare, that was also mentioned before. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Can you just link again, or tell me what post number to find this in? I did not see anything like that and I would like to see it. > **[Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been...](https://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html)** > > There is a new myth circulating in the climate contrarian blogosphere and mainstream media that a figure presented in the 'leaked' draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report shows that the planet has warmed less... See figure 1, 3 and 5 > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sorry, that’s too cryptic for me. Can you spell it out? You are only an anonymous poster on a message board. And over here most dopers do look at how attentive or capable one is with cites and good information. So far I do not see much of a reason to dismiss the higher signal from the people of the poll and take your opinion. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > And what about my earlier question about the methane release from the oceans? I saw no response to that. You see why 😃 You missed the big post #120, it also covered the oceans and with more information in the link. ---
**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 3, 2013, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/149 "2013-09-03T11:13:16Z")
Figure 5 looks the most persuasive for your case. This data leaves me squarely on the…fence, still. It would appear that both sides have a point: things are warmer than they were in 1990; but the last decade (arguably, the last fifteen years) has been flat. The next few years, then, will be very telling. Either that 10-15 years is statistical noise within a long-term trend of warming (and I’m quite willing to believe that is possible), or it really will start inarguably diverging from the predictions (and, more importantly, just not getting any warmer). ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/150 "2013-09-03T11:13:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already mentioned in the OP and in the thread, Ocean rise, Ocean acidification and intensification of extreme weather events. Thanks. Timelines? At some point, I think what will be balanced for Average Joe is the cost of altering his lifestyle/resources now against ameliorating those three concerns as they worsen. That’s why the timeline becomes important. I don’t think the average guy is going to want to do much about sea level rise except build better barriers. And I don’t think the threat of “extreme weather events” is nearly specific enough. Galveston, and all that. If we assume ocean acidification’s most serious consequence is a disruption in the food chain, then surely we have to rank the effect of a burgeoning population above AGW as the current biggest crisis. It’s really hard to turn the message of AGW into one that motivates Average Joe, in my opinion. It’s not at all like solving for Polio. The Alarmists seem too stridently determined to be the Boss of Doom Real Soon Now and less specific about how my life as an average guy will be affected. I’m not surprised the typical practical response is to Have Congress Prioritize AGW instead of giving up SUVs for the bus. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/151 "2013-09-03T11:23:25Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Figure 5 looks the most persuasive for your case. This data leaves me squarely on the…fence, still. It would appear that both sides have a point: Not really when one side is clearly omitting information in the chart that gives them lines that show smaller temperature rises, omit the probability areas and do not update with the latest year data to get the chart that they want. Remember also that uncertainty goes both ways, when contrarians claim that the temperatures will likely be on the low end of the predictions, they are not letting you know that their probability area goes much, much lower than what the IPCC is projecting. Looking at what happened with the ice and other items that are worse than expected what the contrarians claim will happen in the future is not likely at all. What contrarians offer is worse than a calming message, it is malpractice. ---
**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 3, 2013, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/152 "2013-09-03T12:30:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already mentioned in the OP and in the thread, Ocean rise, Ocean acidification and intensification of extreme weather events. I think you’ve neglected to mention several very important concerns, including [ul][li] Loss of glaciers will reduce freshwater availability in S.E. Asia and elsewhere.[/li][li] Higher temperatures will affect tropical rainfall cycles; the Amazon forest will be severely degraded by drought.[/li][li] Changing climate will affect ecological balance. New equilibria will arise eventually, but expect massive disruptions (and extinctions) during the transitions.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/153 "2013-09-03T14:40:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not really when one side is clearly omitting information in the chart that gives them lines that show smaller temperature rises, omit the probability areas and do not update with the latest year data to get the chart that they want. They’re your cited charts showing the decline in temperature. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/154 "2013-09-03T15:59:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > They’re your cited charts showing the decline in temperature. Not the point, and moving the goal posts. The cite you used was not a proper one and did what they accuse the scientists of doing, “massaging the data” to get what he wanted. It was already mentioned that there is a pause of sorts, **refer to Latif once again.** to see how misleading the deniers are with this pause issue with the surface temperatures. ---
**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 3, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/155 "2013-09-03T20:25:24Z")
> **[Is the Pacific Ocean Responsible for the Pause in Global Warming?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pacific-ocean-and-climate-change-pause/)** > > Sea-surface temperatures may explain why climate change is not warming the planet as fast ETA: > **[What to Make of a Warming Plateau (Published 2013)](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0)** > > The rise in the planet’s surface temperature has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that, a circumstance that highlights how much is still unknown about the climate system. ---
**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 3, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/156 "2013-09-03T20:55:21Z")
AGW isn’t just “not wrong”, apparently it cannot be wrong in any part. No consquence can be less bad, God forbid, a higher temperature cannot have any good consequence at all. \*\*Chief \*\*has it right. “Making it a priority” is only relevant when you take specific painful measures in your lifestyle for two or three decades. We all want “less CO2”, but not to the cost of higher gas prices or less travel or less air travel. There are a couple of thread here where warmists huff and puff about “sacrifices”; it’s always others that have to do them. In the meaintime, Julywas another month without (satatictically significant) warming. (about 0.5ºC per century) since December 1996. Heck, not even using big ol’ scary Niño-driven 1998. Will August be the same? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/157 "2013-09-03T21:38:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > [Is the Pacific Ocean Responsible for a Pause in Global Warming? | Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pacific-ocean-and-climate-change-pause) > > ETA: > [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0) > [@](#): > > So, if past is prologue, **this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin.** That will put extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains. Indeed, once again the ones that claim that the pause is reason to not do anything are wrong. ---
**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 3, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/158 "2013-09-03T23:33:28Z")
"this current plateau "…plateau…sounds like an ignorant evil fake sceptic. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/159 "2013-09-04T03:29:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not the point. IS the point. Your own graphs show 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 4, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leaked-ipcc-report-90-confidence-in-agw-is-now-95-and-sea-level-will-rise/667002/160 "2013-09-04T05:59:40Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > IS the point. Your own graphs show it. Useless retort is you do not have a reliable source. To begin with, on many past discussions it was clear that even professional statisticians reported that it was a fraud to use that as an argument to claim that there has been no warming or that the overall trend shows cooling. > **[Statisticians reject global cooling](https://grist.org/article/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/)** > > A terrific story by the AP’s Seth Borenstein, “Statisticians reject global cooling,” not only debunks that myth — it will make your head spin once again on error-riddled Superfreakonomics (coauthored by Levitt). Have you heard that the world is now... > [@](#): > > “In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented” > > ``` > “If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. > > The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. > > Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. > > Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers. > > Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson, author of the book “Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis.” > > ``` The key is precisely the big picture, not the misleading cherry pick of only looking at the recent years of surface temperature alone. As pointed many times before the cooling needs to at least be significant and to reach the levels we had before the solar activity and the current warming parted ways in the 70’s, unfortunately for the contrarians even the cool la nina years _are getting warmer every year they appear_. **There has been no proper explanation whatsoever of that from the McExperts.** [http://climatecrocks.com/2012/01/23/graphs-of-the-day-global-temps-2011/](http://climatecrocks.com/2012/01/23/graphs-of-the-day-global-temps-2011/) (Second figure) More explanations of why it is misleading to \*\*just \*\*look at the recent years for trends is here: > **[Global warming...still happening](https://skepticalscience.com/global_warming_still_happening.html)** > > The apparent lack of warming in Earth's surface temperature measurements since 1998 is not yet significant from climatic perspective. Surface temperature also seems to be changing according to IPCC projections. Climate model simulations show similar... > [@](#): > > The apparent lack of warming in Earth’s surface temperature measurements since 1998 is not yet significant from climatic perspective. Surface temperature also seems to be changing according to IPCC projections. Climate model simulations show similar warming breaks, and have done so even before current break started, even if they include the effect of carbon dioxide. Models also can re-create the current break and the cause for the break seems to be known: warming has gone to the oceans instead of warming the surface. The ocean warming has been observed. Also the continuing warming effect of greenhouse gases has been observed. Global warming as a whole seems to continue despite the apparent break in surface measurements. > [@](#): > > At the moment it seems that the factor causing the pause has been ENSO, which in practice means that the warming effect of greenhouse gases has gone deeper to the oceans instead of warming the surface. This has been the subject of some recent studies. > > Already shown above were the results of Lean & Rind (2009) and Meehl and others (2011). Similar results have also been reported by Kaufmann and others (2011), Hunt (2011), Guemas and others (2013), and Watanabe and others (2013). According to all these studies, the primary cause for the apparent pause in the surface warming is that the warming has gone to the oceans. Solar activity has also been said to have played some role on the issue. Also, Solomon and others (2010) have suggested that changes in water vapor content in the atmosphere might have speeded up the warming during the 1990’s and slowed the warming during 2000’s. > > The warming going into oceans has also been observed. Following Figure shows the ocean heat content in the top layer (0-700 m) of the oceans (from Lyman and others, 2010): > > The graph shows that after 1998 the heat content in the oceans has increased substantially. > > But when can we expect surface warming to continue? Surface warming continues when the sum of all factors affecting Earth’s surface temperature has a warming effect. It can take decades and decades, as long as there are other factors that have large enough cooling effect to mask the warming effect from greenhouse gases. However, our current knowledge suggests that there are no such factors that could have large enough cooling effect in order to make this pause much longer. [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=7) [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=9)