# Are There STILL People Who Deny Global Warming Is Happening? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156 "2009-09-22T22:58:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/41 "2009-09-23T17:03:47Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I’m astounded that anybody could be ignorant that this is precisely why the term “denier” was invented. After all we don’t have “deniers” in any other field of scientific dispute. We have skeptics or opponents. It’s only when your cause is ideological and based on a “truth” that you need to call people deniers. A denier is someone who exhibits [denialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism). If someone is skeptical of data, that’s one thing, but when a person begins to rely on graphs that have been clearly selected or modified to show trends that are statistically meaningless, relies on hobbyists and bloggers as their cites, etc. then that’s ceased to be skepticism. I know that your contention is that climate scientists have falsified the majority of their data as a way of following the money, which is a fairly rational claim compared to the general sort of conspiracy theories that Al Gore has been running the show since 1960 or that climate scientists secretly want humanity back living in caves, but outside of making your claim in a very heart-felt and anecdotal way, you’ve failed to provide any actual surveys or evidence to suggest that this is a real worry. Like I’ve pointed out in the past, a significant number of climate scientists are employed by private industry–who are quite probably against proving climate change. A significant research organization in the US is the EPA which has been run by Republicans for almost its entire history–who would again probably be against proving climate change. The number of scientists who feel like their work has been affected by politicization has been polled, and while higher than other areas of research is still not a majority, and given that half are employed by business and a lot by Republicans, there’s no guarantee that that force applied was in majority to prove climate change. The rate at which people actually do falsify data as compared with how many are being pushed by their managers in a particular direction is known, and it’s only a small percentage, so we’re talking a minority of a minority already. And even if some percentage are falsifying data, at any given moment, several different groups are studying the same thing and releasing their results, so others aren’t reliant on a single data source. And lastly, the same equipment and techniques are often used for other projects than climate change. It seems unlikely that a machine which is being used to study the climate during the dinosaurs age has a special Climate Change button that makes it go into falsified data mode. This doesn’t deny that maybe you’ve felt pressure or that you’ve seen places where pressure could be applied. But there’s no evidence that it’s actually a worry. ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/42 "2009-09-23T17:23:57Z")
Once you buy into the line that “The debate is over” … well, the debate is over. Once Hitler is mentioned in a thread (as per the holocaust reference in the second sentence of the OP), the thread is supposed to be over. If you choose to go beyond that, you can discover (through your own research … that seems to be the only thing that works) that there are two camps of scientists with views on climate change. There are scientists who earn their living, get their grants, etc., promoting climate change, and there are scientists who don’t depend on the climate change promoters for income. Those scientists who don’t depend on the climate change promoters for their livelihood tend to have the opinion that the current climate fluctuations are either completely normal or that there is simply not enough evidence to make a call either way on such a complex issue. The debate is over for the true believers simply because they are true believers, (mis)lead by a power and money hungry group using scare tactics to promote personal agendas. The ‘skeptics’ get short shrift simply because there isn’t any money in telling people the earth has been much warmer throughout most of its existence and in the geological time-frame we are just barely coming out of the last ice age … and what happens over the course of a few years just plain don’t mean a thing. “Some winters are warmer than others” doesn’t sell books or movie and lecture tickets, and it doesn’t make for ‘good’ TV to flash it madly with a Breaking News graphic. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/43 "2009-09-23T17:43:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I know that your contention is that climate scientists have falsified the majority of their data as a way of following the money… Which is itself a patently ridiculous claim, given that there’s a heck of a lot more money to be gained by denying global warming than there is by acknowledging it. Fossil fuels are big business, and it’s a business that would be significantly hurt by acknowledgement of global warming. The fact that there are so many scientists finding evidence for global warming despite the funding situation pointing the opposite direction should be a pretty good indicator that they’re saying it because it’s true. Heck, even some fossil fuel companies have come on board: Why on Earth would _they_ say that global warming were true if it wasn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/44 "2009-09-23T18:14:12Z")
Oil companies are spending millions of dollars researching alternative forms of energy and spending **hundreds** of millions of dollars to tell you about it. And don’t forget the sublte touch of calling themselves energy companies instead of oil companies. It’s not like they’ve spent a hundred years and billions of dollars building the infrastructure to deliver oil … I’m mean, c’mon, if you think about it, those commercials should be making you puke. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/45 "2009-09-23T18:26:03Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Sadly, yes. > > I constantly have to deal with people saying: > > A. It’s cold outside, therefore global warming doesn’t exist, right? > > or > > B. It’s warm outside, therefore global warming will destroy us all this year, right? Every time it snows in upstate New York, I hear from a pen pal there who scoffs at the whole idea of global warming since he has to shovel snow sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/46 "2009-09-23T20:09:06Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > Oil companies are spending millions of dollars researching alternative forms of energy and spending **hundreds** of millions of dollars to tell you about it. That’s because they see the writing on the wall. Don’t think they didn’t go down fighting (and, a few, especially in the coal industry are still fighting). They opposed the scientific consensus on global warming until the point where it became so untenable to do this that they began to jump ship, [starting with the breakup of the Global Climate Coalition in the late 1990s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition). > [@](#): > > The ‘skeptics’ get short shrift simply because there isn’t any money in telling people the earth has been much warmer throughout most of its existence and in the geological time-frame we are just barely coming out of the last ice age … and what happens over the course of a few years just plain don’t mean a thing. No, they get short thrift for the same reason that those who are “skeptics” on evolution get short thrift, namely that their arguments have not carried the day in the scientific literature. And, what do your arguments about what has been true on geologic timescales have to do with whether or not humans are responsible for the warming that is occurring now and is expected to accelerate? The difference between pseudoscience and real science is that pseudoscience makes statements like, “The climate has been warmer in the past before humans were around to drive their SUVs, therefore the current warming is just part of a natural cycle.” Real science looks at the climate change that has occurred throughout the earth’s history and uses it to understand, among other things, how sensitive the climate system is likely to be to the well-understood radiative forcing we are producing by increasing CO2 levels. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/47 "2009-09-23T21:05:43Z")
> [@Quasimodem](#): > > Sober up or rephrase. > > You are polluting this thread. Speaking of re-phrasing: ratchet back on the hostility and direct personal comments in Great Debates. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/48 "2009-09-23T21:14:37Z")
Urgent Breaking News: The oil companies have given up. They have gone down. Civilian Defense Corps prepares plan to handle massive riots expected in bicycle shops as major oil shortage looms. Your children may be in danger. Stay tuned (for a six second clip of three guys with signs at the end of the show.) As to evolution, poor analogy. There are those who look at the science and understand that it is correct (I can put my hand on On the Origin of Species by taking three steps from my desk.) and there are those who, for whatever reason, choose to believe something different. It is the same with GW/CC; there are those who read the science and understand that climate fluctuations are the normal state of the planet, and then there are those who choose to believe something different. The key word is “believe.” The word implies accepting without proof, e.g., leprechauns, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, etc. People don’t believe in evolution, they look at the data and understand that it is correct. Some believe in creationism; they make up their own data or believe what someone else has told them _without evidence._ Some people look at the climate data over the course of millions of years and understand that decade long fluctuations mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Other people insist the long-term is meaningless and look at only 10 years of that data and believe it means something, yet those same people yell about cherry picking (and change the name of their cause) when presented with contradictory data for the next 10 years. They believe in global warming. Global climate is much too complex a system to make short-term predictions based on short-term data. If you feel a need to believe something, believe that … or believe the guy in the Gucci shoes on the forklift has your best interests at heart. ---
**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 23, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/49 "2009-09-23T21:29:03Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > Urgent Breaking News: The oil companies have given up. They have gone down. Civilian Defense Corps prepares plan to handle massive riots expected in bicycle shops as major oil shortage looms. Your children may be in danger. Stay tuned (for a six second clip of three guys with signs at the end of the show.) > > As to evolution, poor analogy. There are those who look at the science and understand that it is correct (I can put my hand on On the Origin of Species by taking three steps from my desk.) and there are those who, for whatever reason, choose to believe something different. It is the same with GW/CC; there are those who read the science and understand that climate fluctuations are the normal state of the planet, and then there are those who choose to believe something different. :rolleyes: [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97\_of\_active\_climatologists\_ag.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php) 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming > [@](#): > > Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? > > The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey. Doran and Zimmermann say: > > “While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.” > > I’m guessing that Lindzen and Spencer are the two that said “no”. > > The difference between the opinion of the general public and the scientists is striking. For comparison, despite the ongoing efforts of right-wing pundits here, 80% of Australians answered “yes” to a similar question. > [@Turble](#): > > The key word is “believe.” The word implies accepting without proof, e.g., leprechauns, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, etc. > > People don’t believe in evolution, they look at the data and understand that it is correct. Some believe in creationism; they make up their own data or believe what someone else has told them _without evidence._ > > Some people look at the climate data over the course of millions of years and understand that decade long fluctuations mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Other people insist the long-term is meaningless and look at only 10 years of that data and believe it means something, yet those same people yell about cherry picking (and change the name of their cause) when presented with contradictory data for the next 10 years. They believe in global warming. You have it backwards, the evidence is there to arrive to the conclusion that humans are the ones causing and/or enhancing the current warming. It is the contrarians who believe that there is no AGW with very little evidence. > [@Turble](#): > > Global climate is much too complex a system to make short-term predictions based on short-term data. If you feel a need to believe something, believe that … or believe the guy in the Gucci shoes on the forklift has your best interests at heart. :rolleyes: You have then not paid any attention, it is the deniers who prefer to use short term data to deny that there has been any warming. (A classic one is the one were they say that warming has stopped since 1998) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/50 "2009-09-23T21:34:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You have then not paid any attention, it is the deniers who prefer to use short term data to deny that there has been any warming. No, that happens on both sides. My cite is the OP. > [@](#): > > A classic one is the one were they say that warming has stopped since 1998 How long would a trend like that need to persist for it to become relevant, I wonder? If not ten years, twenty? If not twenty, a hundred? When, exactly, would short-term become long-term? ---
**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 23, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/51 "2009-09-23T21:51:35Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, that happens on both sides. My cite is the OP. I said **prefer** , and I’m not the OP. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How long would a trend like that need to persist for it to become relevant, I wonder? If not ten years, twenty? If not twenty, a hundred? When, exactly, would short-term become long-term? [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/no\_global\_warming\_has\_not\_stop.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/no_global_warming_has_not_stop.php) > [@](#): > > There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious. > > ``` > Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the "noise" of those year-to-year fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend. > > ``` > > _“Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.”_ > > ``` > All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, **but the data do not support them**. > > ``` I can say that not only in Australia one can get misleading bits from the media. (specially the right wing media) ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/52 "2009-09-23T21:54:21Z")
Nice link. A truly stunning example. Wow. 75 out of the 77 scientists they _chose_ to survey confirmed their point of view. It even says it’s a science blog. All real official looking and everything. I’m almost convinced … just let me do one quick search. Ah, here is a link to a few they chose not to survey: [31,478 American scientists have signed this petition](http://www.petitionproject.org/) Uh oh. This one has 100% of scientists agreeing, yours only has 97%. Who to believe? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/53 "2009-09-23T21:54:45Z")
I don’t want to get banned for repeating the same question – but, as you’ve just helpfully emphasized, you’re not the OP. So instead of explaining why any cooling since '98 is irrelevant, please, by all means, tell me what _ **would** _ be relevant: what hypothetical evidence, in years to come, could falsify the concept of global warming? ---
**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 23, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/54 "2009-09-23T22:01:15Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > Nice link. A truly stunning example. Wow. 75 out of the 77 scientists they _chose_ to survey confirmed their point of view. It even says it’s a science blog. All real official looking and everything. > > I’m almost convinced … just let me do one quick search. Ah, here is a link to a few they chose not to survey: > [31,478 American scientists have signed this petition](http://www.petitionproject.org/) > > Uh oh. This one has 100% of scientists agreeing, yours only has 97%. Who to believe? :rolleyes: ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/5P8mlF8KT6I/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/5P8mlF8KT6I?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque > [@](#): > > We’ve all heard about the “Petitions” of “Scientists” who disagree with Climate Science. This sordid little episode in the history of climate denial points up once again the fundamental dishonesty of the climate denial industry. I agree with the other doper, the contrarians are more like creationists, in that they always come back with “evidence” that was discredited hundreds of times before. > **[08-11-12](https://archive.skeptic.com/archive/eskeptic/08-11-12/)** > > In this week’s eSkeptic, Gary J. Whittenberger Ph.D. discusses how a global warming petition project has misled the public by indicating there is a consensus that the evidence is weak or nonexistent for anthropogenic global warming. > [@](#): > > In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/55 "2009-09-23T22:45:16Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > Nice link. A truly stunning example. Wow. 75 out of the 77 scientists they _chose_ to survey confirmed their point of view. It even says it’s a science blog. All real official looking and everything. > > I’m almost convinced … just let me do one quick search. Ah, here is a link to a few they chose not to survey: > [31,478 American scientists have signed this petition](http://www.petitionproject.org/) I can’t say anything about GIGO’s survey, but the petition you’ve linked to isn’t restricted to climate scientists. The credentials they require to sign the petition make it open to approximately 20 million people, if I recall correctly. 15/100ths of 1% isn’t all that impressive for a petition. ---
**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 23, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/56 "2009-09-23T23:09:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t want to get banned for repeating the same question – but, as you’ve just helpfully emphasized, you’re not the OP. So instead of explaining why any cooling since '98 is irrelevant, please, by all means, tell me what _ **would** _ be relevant: what hypothetical evidence, in years to come, could falsify the concept of global warming? > **[RealClimate: What the IPCC models really say Lo que dicen realmente los...](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/)** > > RealClimate: Over the last couple of months there has been much blog-viating about what the models used in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) do and do not predict about natural variability in the presence of a long-term greenhouse gas related... > [@](#): > > So, to give one possibility, if the global mean temperature from 2050 to 2070 would end up being lower than the 1950 to 1970 global mean temperature, would that be enough to falsify the IPCC projections, assuming no volcanic eruptions, cometary impacts, etc.? > > [Response: …and that the trajectories of the GHGs and aerosols looked something like this scenario. Yes. - gavin] gavin is BTW Gavin Schmidt: > **[Gavin Schmidt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt)** > > Gavin A. Schmidt is a British climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, and co-founder of the climate science blog RealClimate. > He was educated at The Corsham School, earned a BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, and a PhD in applied mathematics at University College London. Schmidt worked on the variability of the ocean circulation and climate, using general circulation models (GCMs). He has also worked on ways ... A contributing editor to the website [RealClimate.org](http://RealClimate.org), “Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).” More recently it was pointed by many contrarians that the water vapor feedback of CO2 was not real or not a big issue, and that therefore the projections of the scientists were not correct. But recently: [http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/water-vapor-confirmed-major-player-climate-change-17805.html](http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/water-vapor-confirmed-major-player-climate-change-17805.html) > [@](#): > > Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. > > With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters. > > “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?” > > The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. > > Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. > > “The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,” Dessler said. > > Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere – the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude. > > AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback. > > “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/57 "2009-09-23T23:16:51Z")
> [@](#): > > So, to give one possibility, if the global mean temperature from 2050 to 2070 would end up being lower than the 1950 to 1970 global mean temperature, would that be enough to falsify the IPCC projections, assuming no volcanic eruptions, cometary impacts, etc.? > > [Response: …and that the trajectories of the GHGs and aerosols looked something like this scenario. Yes. - gavin] Well, that’s – bizarrely specific. So if next year is no warmer than this one, and ditto for the year after that, and ditto for the year after _ **that,** _ and ditto for the decade after that, and ditto for the decade after _ **that,** _ and then it actually gets a lot colder in the decade after _ **that** _ – are we still supposed to stand around saying, _whoa, hey, let’s stick with this “global warming” conclusion until 2050 rolls around and kicks off a relevant timeframe, eh?_ ---
**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 23, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/58 "2009-09-23T23:34:38Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, that’s – bizarrely specific. > > So if next year is no warmer than this one, and ditto for the year after that, and ditto for the year after _ **that,** _ and ditto for the decade after that, and ditto for the decade after _ **that,** _ and then it actually gets a lot colder in the decade after _ **that** _ – are we still supposed to stand around saying, _whoa, hey, let’s stick with this “global warming” conclusion until 2050 rolls around and kicks off a relevant timeframe, eh?_ No. The current problem is that none of the last 10 years have gone back to levels that were seen in the 70’s for example. The best one can say is that natural causes are preventing the warming from going up nowadays, but AGW is not stopping. We should have seen then a continuous cooling to past levels, instead it remains hotter than the 70s or the 80s. I have seen on global warming graphs periods of stability that go for more than 15 years; unfortunately, after those periods, instead of going down the warming shows up again. > **[RealClimate: Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison...](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/)** > > RealClimate: Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf John Tierney and Roger Pielke Jr. have recently discussed attempts to validate (or falsify) IPCC projections of global temperature change over the period 2000-2007. Others have attempted to show that... > [@](#): > > The red line is the annual global-mean GISTEMP temperature record (though any other data set would do just as well), while the blue lines are 8-year trend lines – one for each 8-year period of data in the graph. What it shows is exactly what anyone should expect: the trends over such short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative – depending on which year you start with. The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either \>0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (\< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations. > > So, it should be clear that short term comparisons are misguided, but the reasons why, and what should be done instead, are worth exploring. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/59 "2009-09-23T23:49:53Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I can’t say anything about GIGO’s survey, but the petition you’ve linked to isn’t restricted to climate scientists. The credentials they require to sign the petition make it open to approximately 20 million people, if I recall correctly. It looks like anyone with a degree in the sciences can sign. Hell, _I_ would qualify to sign it and I’m not a professional scientist at all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156/60 "2009-09-23T23:55:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No.The current problem is that none of the last 10 years have gone back to levels that were seen in the 70’s for example. Okay: if _ **that** _ happened over the next ten years, would it count as evidence against AGW? Over the next twenty? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-still-people-who-deny-global-warming-is-happening/511156.md?page=4)