# Climate change: "You are among the last people that will ever walk the Earth." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096 "2013-02-22T18:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/61 "2013-02-26T05:17:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Clueless still, the 16 year pause is based on a falsehood, as it is clear that you need to go to an extreme to dismiss what the IPCC and others still report, this is very silly. If the quote is shown to be false I will apologise. I hope ypu do the same if it turns out to be true, > [@](#): > > A pause in temperature was reported by scientists like Latiff in 2010 (himself also the victim of virtually the same twisting of his words) again, with him and the scientists reporting that the warming has not stopped. Since I’ve already mentioned it twice it looks you’re reading from a script. No GW scientist has ever said that this lull in temp increase means GW is over, none of them, zero, zilch. No phrase, sentence or paragraph I ever write will ever mean that unless I clearly and specifically say it, in all other cases the consensus position is that temp flatness notwithstanding, GW carries on. I won’t say it again. > [@](#): > > Again, you are only grasping a straw that: > > 1. Is based on a falsehood, the Met office did not admit to what the Australian reporter said. Okay, to UK quotes. [The Telegraph](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html)(1997 – 0.40 2017 0.43) [Daily Mail](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html) > [@](#): > > 1. There is no quote from Pachauri saying this, once again the context of the overall message is that the warming continues and cycles of nature also do, they make the temperature record look like a step down, in an overall upwards escalator. If there is no quote, how can there be a context? > [@](#): > > 1. You still are not coming forward with a good explanation on why the years that flatten the rise in temperature (la nina years) in a cycle are themselves getting \*\*warmer \*\*in every cycle (as are the other years in the cycle themselves) Since I haven’t mentioned any of that, why would I have to explain it? > [@](#): > > And 4) the biggest fallacy here is claiming that scientists are saying that the temperature record would show a constant upward trend, this is indeed false as scientists reported even in the 70’s that a downward trend was not enough to dismiss the predicted rise in temperature, they were indeed correct. Look at my second anser to your post. [QUOTE] > [@Frylock](#): > > This remark has no relevance to anything. I could make one up right now, for sure. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether dire predictions are supported by the very evidence the scientist was giving when he mentioned a “pause.” The answer is, yes, dire predictions are supported by that evidence. Not just that he was making them–the point is, he was _supporting_ them. In a thread started with a Doomsday quote I have to disagree as to its lack of relevance. > [@](#): > > This is the central locus of the stupid. You surely understand the difference between a statistical sense and a more every day sense of the phrase “rise in temperature,” and you surely know which applies here. So though I apply the term “stupid” to each thought you’re expressing here, I leave the question of _why_ you’re being this foolish up to others to determine. I said a scientific truth. All other implications were not covered in my fact unless you deny that the anomaly has not had a statistical change since 1997. > [@](#): > > This is not true. If a model predicts a period of flat temperatures, and also predicts a rise on average, and those flat temperatures do in fact occur with the frequency and length predicted by that model, then depending on the details etc those flat temperatures can indeed support GW. I would love to see any GW model that predicted a 17-year lull. I would love to see a quote of a GW scientist saying the flat temps confirm GW. > [@](#): > > I don’t know enough about this model to know how directly the above describes what’s happening, but the point is you are wrong to think a flat temperature must fail to support GW. It can be not only compatible with it, but downright supporting of it, again, depending on the model and other details. I didn’t say that. I’ve seen GW models that could cope with a decrease in temp, but no scientist says “good, temps are going down, model confirmed”, they say “fallin temps are compatible with our theory” > [@](#): > > I don’t “admit it,” I simply state it since it’s an obvious fact. How long that certain time is I have no idea. And neither do you I’d bet. But in any case the point is completely irrelevant to the GW question. We haven’t seen any data for a flat temperature timespan of a length and type that supports any non-GW scenario. Really, if temperatures were flat for 100 years while CO2 concentratin keep going up it wouldn’t be logical to revise models? ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/62 "2013-02-26T05:46:06Z")
Global warming will probably be bad for humans. It might be very bad. And there’s a slim outside chance it might even be catastrophic, killing off a significant percentage of the population and/or ruining our current civilization. But there’s no way, no how, that it’ll drive us extinct. We’re just too numerous, spread over too many different environments, and with too many resources at our disposal, for that to happen. ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/63 "2013-02-26T05:48:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Since I’ve already mentioned it twice it looks you’re reading from a script. No GW scientist has ever said that this lull in temp increase means GW is over, none of them, zero, zilch. No phrase, sentence or paragraph I ever write will ever mean that unless I clearly and specifically say it, in all other cases the consensus position is that temp flatness notwithstanding, GW carries on. I won’t say it again. There is a need to repeat it as it is clear that your idea is to avoid mentioning that context to others. The problem is that then you say it again, the clear implication is that scientists \*\*never \*\*talked about these cycles: > [@](#): > > I would love to see any GW model that predicted a 17-year lull. > I would love to see a quote of a GW scientist saying the flat temps confirm GW. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Okay, to UK quotes. > [The Telegraph](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html)(1997 – 0.40 2017 0.43) > [Daily Mail](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html) Ah, The Daily Fail and the Torygraph.. Like if it not easier to go for the main sources: Once again, Peter Hadfiel shows how the retarded Daily Mail and how others continue to get it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qbn1rCZz1ow?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ And once again the blogs just pulled “That report of the Met Office” from their ass. The Met office even told the Daily Mail reporters that there was a warming trend! As Peter Hadfield reported “The reason why this was not reported in other serious media before is that the tabloids pulled it from thin air” And then Fox and others followed it. “This is not superhuman, anyone could check for a few seconds at the Met office for that report, or to check if that report of the 16 year pause existed in the first place.” And no, it did not exist. The continuous “mistakes” from the Daily Mail and others are more than enough to conclude that fabrications are their way of life. > **[Archived blog posts](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/archived-posts/blog-posts-not-on-met-office-website)** > > Can't find the blog post you're looking for? Some of our older posts have been archived and were not moved across to the Met Office website when we moved the blog. > [@](#): > > This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. > > Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997. > > For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data. > > “The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections. > > “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.” ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/64 "2013-02-26T05:58:52Z")
And, just like I found with very little effort, Skeptical Science also has noticed how sorry the source was and how unreliable they continue to be: > **[Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html)** > > As we have discussed many times at Skeptical Science, although the warming of global surface air temperatures has slowed over the past decade due to a preponderance of La Niña events, the rate of heat accumulation on Earth has not slowed at all.  In... > [@](#): > > The IPCC communications office tells Skeptical Science that The Australian has not provided a transcript or audio file of the interview for verification, but it does not accurately represent Pachauri’s thoughts on the subject - namely that as discussed in this post, global surface temperatures have plateaued (though over the past decade, not 17 years), and that this in no way disproves global warming. > > Despite the lack of useful verifiable content, the story headline has nevertheless gone viral. This is not the first time Lloyd has been caught misrepresenting climate science in The Australian - in January of this 2013 he wrongly claimed that a study had found no link between global warming and sea level rise. Oceanographer John Church, who was co-author on the misrepresented research in question and also Nuccitelli et al. (2012) from which Figure 1 above originated, set the record straight, and The Australian was forced to retract the article. > [@](#): > > The claim about the “peak climate-science bodies” undoubtedly refers to another misleading newspaper article wrongly claiming that global warming stopped by the Mail’s David Rose, and Lloyd’s comment about the Met Office prediction is also inaccurate. Ultimately the only statement the Australian article attributes to Pachauri on this subject is that “global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.” > > Again note that the story is paraphrasing Pachauri rather than quoting him directly. Had he said that global surface air temperatures have plateaued and that this doesn’t disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct. **Though it’s also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming)**. > > More importantly, over the past 17 years the planet has accumulated the equivalent energy to detonating 3.7 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second. It takes a fundamental misundertanding of the global climate to deny that immense amount of global warming. > > As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, global warming will continue. That is a physical reality that cannot be changed by misstatements or misquotes or misrepresentations or denial. Global warming will not stop until we do something to stop it. ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/65 "2013-02-26T13:06:51Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You have to admit that, as improbable as it may seem, after certain time (30 years?) of either flat or falling temperatures the theoretical assumptions behind the models would have to be revised > > I don’t “admit it,” I simply state it since it’s an obvious fact. How long that certain time is I have no idea. And neither do you I’d bet. I can’t begin to understand this point of view. Back when, I too figured it was _“obvious”_ what _“flat or falling temperatures”_ would mean for the theory. And, like you, I had _“no idea”_ how long that amount of time would be – because, like you, I heard a heck of a lot of folks predict warming in general with no specifics in particular; they’d explain away some cooling as irrelevant, without spelling out how much cooling would be relevant. But you go a step further: despite having no idea how long that time is, you still take the claim seriously. How do you do that? I couldn’t take it seriously until GIGO haltingly laid out how much cooling would be relevant – but you take this seriously without even knowing whether a 30-year plateau is perfectly consistent with predictions? You take the prediction seriously without actually knowing what’s being predicted? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/66 "2013-02-26T13:21:44Z")
Not 100% sure I understand the question. Two things I can say: I take GW predictions seriously because it is the consensus view among climate scientists–so much so that it seems there is no serious opposition to it among climate scientists, only disputes about how fast and how it will affect things. Regarding my point about predictions, it was a very theoretical quasi-philosophical point about how science works, and about the relative epistemological opinions of me and **An Gadai**. Namely, my point is neither of us really knows much about it (me by admission, s/he by display in this thread) so arguments about “how many years of cooling would negate the hypothesis” are kind of moot til both of us have done a whole lot of reading. That kind of detailed analysis of the claims is not appropriate to this context–the context of a couple of ignorant rubes jabbering about what they read in the papers the other day. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/67 "2013-02-26T13:27:11Z")
Something else that may be relevant to what you were asking: I assume their models do make predictions about how much cooling there would be (in other words I assume there is a number even though I don’t know what the number is) and that they’re busily checking actual numbers against their predictions, because I know in general that’s how science works. ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/68 "2013-02-26T13:37:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Not 100% sure I understand the question. Two things I can say: > > I take GW predictions seriously because it is the consensus view among climate scientists–so much so that it seems there is no serious opposition to it among climate scientists, only disputes about how fast and how it will affect things. To the point where you just got through saying you have _no idea_ how long a period of flat or falling temperatures is consistent with that consensus. You replied to his specific point by agreeing that, yeah, well, three solid decades with no warming may fit the prediction, or not, you don’t know, you have no idea. You know there’s a consensus, but you don’t know what it is, or what it predicts: decades of cooling? A century without warming? > [@](#): > > Namely, my point is neither of us really knows much about it (me by admission, s/he by display in this thread) so arguments about “how many years of cooling would negate the hypothesis” are kind of moot til both of us have done a whole lot of reading. That kind of detailed analysis of the claims is not appropriate to this context–the context of a couple of ignorant rubes jabbering about what they read in the papers the other day. Possibly that’s the difference I was looking for. You can, in the same breath, (a) describe yourself as an ignorant rube who figures the “how many years” question is moot until he’s read more, and (b) still take it seriously even though you have no idea what would negate the hypothesis – even while stating that some amount of time would obviously negate the hypothesis. I can’t do all of that simultaneously. > [@](#): > > Something else that may be relevant to what you were asking: I assume their models do make predictions about how much cooling there would be (in other words I assume there is a number even though I don’t know what the number is) and that they’re busily checking actual numbers against their predictions, because I know in general that’s how science works. And you’d keep on believing that a decade from now, two decades from now, three decades from now, without ever actually stopping to ask what it is? If so, I get it; I’m just not wired that way. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/69 "2013-02-26T13:43:49Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Possibly that’s the difference I was looking for. You can, in the same breath, (a) describe yourself as an ignorant rube who figures the “how many years” question is moot until he’s read more, and (b) still take it seriously even though you have no idea what would negate the hypothesis – even while stating that some amount of time would obviously negate the hypothesis. I can’t do all of that simultaneously. I think you can. Aren’t there scientific claims in Physics (for example) which you endorse but don’t really understand? “Endorse” in the sense of saying “it must be true because it’s what the experts all agree is true.” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/70 "2013-02-26T13:44:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And you’d keep on believing that a decade from now, two decades from now, three decades from now, without ever actually stopping to ask what it is? Ask me two or three decades from now. We’ll be in a different epistemological position then–for example, there may come to be more division between scientists at that point. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/71 "2013-02-26T13:52:28Z")
There isn’t going to be any more division among scientists in the future. Of the 14 warmest years on record since record keeping began, 12 have been the first 12 years of this century. If you can look at that and declare that warming isn’t occurring, you’re an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/72 "2013-02-26T13:56:01Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There isn’t going to be any more division among scientists in the future. Of the 14 warmest years on record since record keeping began, 12 have been the first 12 years of this century. If you can look at that and declare that warming isn’t occurring, you’re an idiot. Not sure if tihs was clear, so I’ll clarify: The point was purely hypothetical. I was asked what I would say after twenty or thirty years of flat or lowering temperatures. In that case, were it to happen, what I would say would depend on what the scientists were saying. I wouldn’t be surprised if they started revising their models, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they had real disagreements about how to do so–in which case my position would be “I don’t know if GW is happening or not” rather than “I think GW is happening.” (Or, if they all came to a new consensus that GW isn’t happening, that’d be my view as well.) ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/73 "2013-02-26T14:01:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I think you can. Aren’t there scientific claims in Physics (for example) which you endorse but don’t really understand? > > “Endorse” in the sense of saying “it must be true because it’s what the experts all agree is true.” Well, yes and no. I mean, I’m an ignorant rube when it comes to why we can’t possibly build a spaceship that rockets astronauts to other worlds faster than the speed of light – but I know what the speed of light is, and how fast stuff would have to move from Point A to Point B to prove the consensus false. I know the expert consensus about perpetual-motion machines: crackpots have invariably failed, something something friction, something something law of thermodynamics – I don’t need to know the specifics, I’m content to be an ignorant rube who gives an endorsement. But I could, if pressed, describe a hypothetical perpetual-motion machine that would prove them all wrong; I don’t believe anyone will ever build one, but I realize what it would be. Are we on the same page? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/74 "2013-02-26T14:11:56Z")
Not sure. I’m guessing you think there’s a certain number of observations of a certain type which would serve to show that there is no Higgs Boson after all–that the recent observations which have suggested it may have been found were actually explainable by some other means. I’m also guessing that, though you believe there’s some such number, you don’t have any idea what the number is–and aren’t particularly bothered by this. I’m guessing you figure the physicists know what they’re doing on this one. But am I guessing wrong? ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/75 "2013-02-26T14:23:02Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > There isn’t going to be any more division among scientists in the future. Of the 14 warmest years on record since record keeping began, 12 have been the first 12 years of this century. If you can look at that and declare that warming isn’t occurring, you’re an idiot. Standing alone, that seems like insufficient evidence. What if each year was cooler than the one before, and the next three decades follow suit? What if all of them were locked in a dead-even tie, and that plateau continues? If you’d declare that to be warming, are you an idiot? [QUOTE=Frylock] I’m guessing you think there’s a certain number of observations of a certain type which would serve to show that there is no Higgs Boson after all–that the recent observations which have suggested it may have been found were actually explainable by some other means. I’m also guessing that, though you believe there’s some such number, you don’t have any idea what the number is–and aren’t particularly bothered by this. I’m guessing you figure the physicists know what they’re doing on this one. [/QUOTE] Not sure I’d go quite that far. As I understand it, the observations thus far are consistent with a boson that has no spin and no charge, right? I’d like to think I’m minimally competent to say, _“If they observe a spin or a charge, that’d ruin their predictions.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/76 "2013-02-26T14:29:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Standing alone, that seems like insufficient evidence. What if each year was cooler than the one before, and the next three decades follow suit? What if all of them were locked in a dead-even tie, and that plateau continues? If you’d declare that to be warming, are you an idiot? > > Not sure I’d go quite that far. As I understand it, the observations thus far are consistent with a boson that has no spin and no charge, right? I’d like to think I’m minimally competent to say, _“If they observe a spin or a charge, that’d ruin their predictions.”_ My understanding is that in particle collider physics, there’s not really such a thing as “observing a spin,” rather, there’s a recording of billions of reactions, and a complex process of analyzing these reactions statistically, with the result of assigning probabilities that among those reactions were some involving a particle where a higgs boson might have been expected, but which had charge. Also, concerning Higgs, all the observations are compatible, statistically, with the possibility that there’s no Higgs there after all. Though they’re currently very suggestive (and afaik the consensus–though not as strong as GW by any means–is that Higgs has basically been found) it is not impossible (though most might think it improbable) that after a number of further experiments they might decide what they saw earlier was a statistical fluke or statistically normal for some non-Higgs particle. On this model, even if it can be done in a single experiment (which it probably can’t) fundamentally what would be happening would be a threshold number of individual observations (among the billiions) would be reached at some point where the consensus among physicists would be that within acceptable error margins almost certainly the higgs isn’t where it is supposed to be according to the Standard Model. A physicist doper might be able to set one of us straight here, though. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/77 "2013-02-26T14:50:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Standing alone, that seems like insufficient evidence. What if each year was cooler than the one before, and the next three decades follow suit? What if all of them were locked in a dead-even tie, and that plateau continues? If you’d declare that to be warming, are you an idiot? This is dumb argument IMNSHO. What if the temperature rockets up 2 degrees and then levels off again for another decade. Would this be proof that warming has stopped? I believe we had another level period in the 60s and 70s, did warming stop then? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/78 "2013-02-26T15:46:07Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Standing alone, that seems like insufficient evidence. What if each year was cooler than the one before, and the next three decades follow suit? What if all of them were locked in a dead-even tie, and that plateau continues? If you’d declare that to be warming, are you an idiot? It isn’t going to happen that way. I’ll say this, if you obsess over 1997, you’re an idiot. The earth isn’t like a human where you take a single reading and know the internal temperature. If you consider the totality of the oceans and the atmosphere, the earth can (and is) warming each year despite the fact that when you try to quantify it, you’re limited to what you can measure. If the places where you happen to have instruments don’t show each year to be warmer than the year before, all that proves is that there may be heat flow from places you can measure to places where you can’t. ---
**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:** [February 26, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/79 "2013-02-26T18:56:17Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > It isn’t going to happen that way. I’ll say this, if you obsess over 1997, you’re an idiot. I’m not especially interested in 1997. (I’m mildly impressed by your ability to sidestep the ban on insults with a conditional, but in this case it’s irrelevant.) > [@](#): > > If the places where you happen to have instruments don’t show each year to be warmer than the year before, all that proves is that there may be heat flow from places you can measure to places where you can’t. Well, that’s slightly terrifying. You’re saying decades could pass without showing any rise in temperature – indeed, with the instruments showing that each year is cooler than the one before – and all it proves is, _well, there may be heat flow from places you can measure to places where you can’t?_ Imagine someone blithely handwaved away your evidence in like fashion: _“Sure, your instruments show a rise in temperature – but all that proves is there may be cooler temperatures where your instruments aren’t.”_ Wouldn’t you promptly hit him with one of those conditional insults, suggesting that he’s an idiot if he believes that? [QUOTE=L. G. Butts, Ph.D.] This is dumb argument IMNSHO. What if the temperature rockets up 2 degrees and then levels off again for another decade. Would this be proof that warming has stopped? [/QUOTE] Kinda? I mean, even Frylock grants that it’s obvious a plateau of **some** length would suffice; he doesn’t know whether it’s three decades, or more, or less, but at some point it’d be fair to say warming has stopped. (I’ve been told that even a single decade is practically enough to do it: that the current prediction is for 2017 to be at least a tenth of a degree warmer than 2007, and for 2027 to be at least a tenth of a degree warmer still – and if 2027 is equal to or cooler than 2017, or if 2017 falls short of 2007, then it’s time to rethink a bunch of stuff. Strikes me as a weird and error-prone yardstick, but I didn’t come up with 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:** [February 26, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/80 "2013-02-26T19:45:43Z")
A moot point as it was pointed before, the experts report that indeed the warming has not stopped. “Though it’s also worth noting that over the past 17 years, the global surface temperature trend is approximately 0.10 ± 0.13°C per decade, which is most likely positive (warming).” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=5)