# Credulous "experts" on global warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2015, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477 "2015-08-31T05:47:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/81 "2015-09-02T15:58:10Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > How many different aspects are there to temperature, humidity, pressure, etc? _Time_ is a reference, not a factor; the rate of change,\* or velocity\* remains the same no matter how much time passes. If you want _acceleration_, then you’ll need a force. Such a force must be demonstrated at all time intervals. So with respect to the _forces_ that cause changes to temperature etc., then meteorology and climatology are exactly the same I do not think it was a coincidence that one of the items that was snipped from my quote was the item of Paleo Climatology. No, Climatology is not the same as Meteorology. Unless you can point a weatherman using things like dendrochronology you are indeed very wrong. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/82 "2015-09-02T16:09:58Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > How many different aspects are there to temperature, humidity, pressure, etc? _Time_ is a reference, not a factor; the rate of change,\* or velocity\* remains the same no matter how much time passes. If you want _acceleration_, then you’ll need a force. Such a force must be demonstrated at all time intervals. So with respect to the _forces_ that cause changes to temperature etc., then meteorology and climatology are exactly the same > > Any force that acts on the weather over thirty years will also act over the infinitely small time interval, no exceptions. > > Emphases Mine > > Very well stated, I agree with you 100% … except the “hundreds of gigatons of CO[sub]2[/sub]”, you can check the arithmetic, but I think it’s only _tens_ of gigatons. We’re only observing around 1 ppmv annual increase in CO[sub]2[/sub]. > > Global temperatures have crashed since the mid-Cretaceous. Indeed we find today’s temperatures about as cold as it has been since the Cambrian Period. Obviously man’s activities didn’t plunge us into a devastating ice age 30 million years ago, and it is _very_ hard to believe that man’s activities will bring the Earth out of the current ice age, not without hard data at least. Any force that acts on the weather over thirty years will also act over the infinitely small time interval, no exceptions. Define “act” Do you know what “statistical sample” or “anomaly” or “paradoxical” mean? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/83 "2015-09-02T16:27:03Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Very well stated, I agree with you 100% … except the “hundreds of gigatons of CO[sub]2[/sub]”, you can check the arithmetic, but I think it’s only _tens_ of gigatons. We’re only observing around 1 ppmv annual increase in CO[sub]2[/sub]. Wrong again, > **[Earth's CO2 Home Page](https://www.co2.earth/)** > > CO2.Earth connects the general public with the latest data and information for stabilizing earth's atmosphere, climate and living environments. > [@](#): > > For the past decade (2005-2014) the average annual increase is 2.1 ppm per year. The average for the prior decade (1995-2004) is 1.9 ppm per year. > **[2014 State of the Climate: Carbon Dioxide](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2014-state-climate-carbon-dioxide)** > > Scientists estimated global average carbon dioxide concentration at 397.2 parts per million (ppm) in 2014, as the global growth rate of carbon dioxide continues to accelerate.  > [@](#): > > Scientists attribute the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to a fourfold increase in emissions from human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and cement production. > > The global growth rate of carbon dioxide has accelerated from about 0.6 ppm per year in the early 1960s to an average of 2 ppm per year during the past 10 years. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Global temperatures have crashed since the mid-Cretaceous. Indeed we find today’s temperatures about as cold as it has been since the Cambrian Period. Obviously man’s activities didn’t plunge us into a devastating ice age 30 million years ago, and it is _very_ hard to believe that man’s activities will bring the Earth out of the current ice age, not without hard data at least. And strike tree. Make up your mind, you are jumping with no effort from telling us that there will no warming or that we will see riches when it comes. As Richard Alley told us years ago, this is basic physics, If we add more CO2 to the atmosphere Earth will warm. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/RffPSrRpq_g/hqdefault.jpg "Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/84 "2015-09-02T17:33:00Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > And you think the sun was cooler in the last Ice Age? Or the Earth lacked a molten core? > > So, you just deny the Second Law of Thermodynamics now? > > ETA: OK, OK, a cooling sun, or a changed orbital path of the Earth, is not impossible. It is, however, an extraordinary claim, and requires an extraordinary defense. The greenhouse effect is not such an extraordinary claim. It’s ordinary, known science. You can deny the 2nd law of Thermodynamics if you chose to. You can also deny that the sun warms the surface of the Earth, and that a molten core warms the subsurface of the Earth. I said, “Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. The sun warms the planet’s surface and the molten core warms the rest.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/85 "2015-09-02T17:38:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > They did, many times and this is very old. > And that was just looking at what Plass and others had discovered then, we only have got more confirmations ever since then. > > So, yes, deniers of that are indeed like Flat Earthers. Yes, the current global warming is very old. It’s as old as the last ice age. It’s a naturally occurring phenomena. Man-made CO2 is a fairly recent invention. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/86 "2015-09-02T17:46:46Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Yes, the current global warming is very old. It’s as old as the last ice age. It’s a naturally occurring phenomena. Man-made CO2 is a fairly recent invention. So, as a recent “invention,” you are finally admitting that it changes the process? Or are you pretending that your own words are irrelevant to the discussion? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/87 "2015-09-02T18:10:25Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > How many different aspects are there to temperature, humidity, pressure, etc? _Time_ is a reference, not a factor; the rate of change,\* or velocity\* remains the same no matter how much time passes. If you want _acceleration_, then you’ll need a force. Such a force must be demonstrated at all time intervals. So with respect to the _forces_ that cause changes to temperature etc., then meteorology and climatology are exactly the same > > Any force that acts on the weather over thirty years will also act over the infinitely small time interval, no exceptions. Completely wrong. Just stunningly wrong. To put it mildly, your little diatribe obfuscates the most basic fact that weather is dominated by completely different factors at different timescales, giving rise to entirely different scientific fields of study. The best commonplace example is the difference between the chaos of daily weather and the cyclic predictability of seasonal climate. Clearly temperature change isn’t linear. It was cool here a few days ago, and was getting downright chilly at night. Today it’s hot and humid. Apparently the temperature is rising. But we’re approaching fall and it should be getting cooler. So why did it get hotter? It’s a mystery! But I’ll take a bet that on average it will be much cooler in November and December. So then we will conclude that the temperature is falling! Which is correct? But CO2 is supposed to cause warming so how come it will be getting colder? It’s all so confusing! 😃 It depends on the timescale you use, because different forces are visible only at the appropriate timescales. Seasonal changes are invisible on daily weather-forecasting timescales because they’re lost in the chaos. They only manifest over timescales of months. The forcings that drive AGW start to become apparent only on decadal timescales and beyond, when their unique signature emerges from the noise of the underlying chaotic variations. And the study of those forcings has nothing to do with daily weather – it’s a vast scientific discipline with many dozens of specialties. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/88 "2015-09-02T18:35:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You can deny the 2nd law of Thermodynamics if you chose to. :rolleyes: [http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics/](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics/) > [@](#): > > No argument with the second law of thermodynamics here, that one seems to be on pretty solid ground! But the train of logic above has a subtle problem in its over statement of the constraints this law places on energy flow. Given a warmer and a cooler body exchanging energy either through convection or through radiation, the fact is, energy is constantly being exchanged in both directions. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to individual photons, it applies to the net flow of energy in the entire system. How could it be otherwise? > > When an excited molecule of CO2 releases a photon, it does not somehow “know” which way to send it. It can not aim it towards a cooler body. It is simply released in a random direction. In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, having absorbed some of the energy radiating towards space from the surface of the earth, this random choice of direction means that, roughly speaking, half of that energy is sent back. An individual molecule is not influenced at all by the temperature of the earth’s surface, be it warmer or cooler. > > Where the second law does apply is in the net flow of heat, and this happens because a warmer body will send out more energy overall than it is receiving from the cooler one. Lots of energy going back and foth, but on balance more is leaving the warmer body. > [@](#): > > In the case of the simplified earth-atmosphere system, the Earth’s surface warms from the sun’s incoming shortwave radiation. As it is now a warm body floating in cold space, Earth radiates long wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature. If that were the whole story, the earth would have balanced its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long wave radiation at an average surface temperature of roughly -18oC and it would be a rather inhospitable place. As it is, the content of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing long wave radiation and send it back down where we all live. The earth must balance this by warming enough so that it can radiate this additional energy back out again. The totality of this natural effect is around 33oC, bringing our average surface temperature to a comfortable +15oC. > > So, it is not really like a blanket, which inhibits convection in both directions, or like an actual greenhouse, which lets in the sunlight and then also inhibits convection, but both are reasonable analogies as far as they go. The scientists in the IPCC know this, they are only using these analogies to help laypeople understand the very general principals. If you hear someone attacking climate science by attacking these analogies, they are attacking a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/89 "2015-09-02T18:36:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, as a recent “invention,” you are finally admitting that it changes the process? Or are you pretending that your own words are irrelevant to the discussion? Global warming is a very old “invention”. Global warming existed long before man existed. Blaming man-made CO2 for global warming is relatively new. People have been questioning the “science” and the methods of the UN/IPCC since 1988. \*A Major Deception on Global Warming Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 - Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth’s climate, released “The Science of Climate Change 1995,” its first new report in five years. …But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. …The participating scientists accepted “The Science of Climate Change” in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report–the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate–were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text. …The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version: - “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” - “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.” - “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.\*” > **[Seitz%20-%20A%20Major%20Deception%20on%20Global%20Warming.pdf](https://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Seitz%20-%20A%20Major%20Deception%20on%20Global%20Warming.pdf)** ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/90 "2015-09-02T18:37:43Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Yes, the current global warming is very old. It’s as old as the last ice age. It’s a naturally occurring phenomena. Man-made CO2 is a fairly recent invention. Not at the same rate. The warming from the last ice age was a slow process driven by the increase of CO2 from the ice age level of 180 ppm to the nominal interglacial level of 285 ppm where it had stabilized for thousands of years. Today it’s on the verge of exceeding 400 ppm, creating a net radiative forcing of 1.68 W/m **2 from CO2 alone and a net of 2.29 W/m** 2 total anthropogenic forcing relative to the pre-industrial era. Or do you have a better explanation for the sudden and dramatic uptick in temperature rise? You’d win the Nobel prize if you do, but unfortunately your analysis that “the sun warms the earth” doesn’t cut it. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/91 "2015-09-02T18:43:25Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Very well stated, I agree with you 100% … except the “hundreds of gigatons of CO[sub]2[/sub]”, you can check the arithmetic, but I think it’s only _tens_ of gigatons. We’re only observing around 1 ppmv annual increase in CO[sub]2[/sub]. I don’t know if there’s an agreed total since industrialization, but estimates I found from a quick search ranged from 500-1300 gigatons. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/92 "2015-09-02T18:49:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > People have been questioning the “science” and the methods of the UN/IPCC since 1988. > > \*A Major Deception on Global Warming Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 - … The late Frederick Seitz, with all respect to the deceased, [was a lying shill for the tobacco industry who later become a lying shill for the oil industry](http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/manufactured-ignorance). His criticism of Chapter 8 the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment [was refuted by multiple sources including the authors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Second_Assessment_Report#Chapter_8). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/93 "2015-09-02T18:56:28Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Global warming is a very old “invention”. Global warming existed long before man existed. Blaming man-made CO2 for global warming is relatively new. > > People have been questioning the “science” and the methods of the UN/IPCC since 1988. > > \*A Major Deception on Global Warming Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 - Whoa, now that is really a blast of the denialist christmas past. Citing an opinion piece from Frederick Seitz about climate change is like citing Attila the Hun on human rights. > **[The Full Monty](https://grist.org/article/full/)** > > In an effort to combat global warming, Great Britain has set up the world’s first national greenhouse gas emissions trading plan. Under the plan, emissions credits will be traded like any other commodity; British companies that agree to participate... > [@](#): > > In the 1950s, Big Tobacco had begun using scientists to sow doubt about links between their product and cancer. As the evidence against them mounted in the 1970s, the tobacco industry realized they needed something more. They found it in Seitz, who was not merely a scientist, but the former president of the Academy of Sciences. > > Indecision. R. J. Reynolds put Seitz in charge of the company’s biomedical research grant program. The amount of money available was staggering. In 1981, Oreskes and Conway write, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association together contributed $300,000 to research. In that same year, Big Tobacco directed $6.3 million to researchers who consistently found no evidence conclusively linking tobacco to serious medical problems. > > Seitz and the tobacco industry were a perfect fit. Environmental and industrial regulations were anathema to each. For the industry, it was a simple matter of self-interest. While Seitz was well-paid for his work, ideology may have been the more important factor. Over the years Seitz’s conservative views had grown ever more extreme. He found himself alienated from many of his scientific colleagues over the Vietnam War (many of them were against the war; Seitz was an enthusiastic supporter). He also became convinced that environmentalists were dupes of communist propaganda, if not outright traitors. > > Eventually, Seitz’s right-wing views would become too much for even the tobacco industry. Seitz was, in their view, “not sufficiently rational” to maintain a public connection with the industry. > [@](#): > > Over a thousand experts signed a petition stating that they would refuse any government funding of projects that could further SDI. The move enraged Seitz and his colleagues Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow. In reaction, the three hawks formed the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank dedicated to selling Star Wars to policy makers and the public. For Seitz and his colleagues, GMI represented a decisive step away from the scientific community — and from science itself. With the fate of the country hanging in the balance, an ideology devoted to the red, white, and blue came before science, which prided itself on being colorless and colorblind. > > As the unworkable SDI inevitably faded, GMI turned to other ideological battles, including ozone depletion and 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 2, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/94 "2015-09-02T18:58:34Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > I don’t know if there’s an agreed total since industrialization, but estimates I found from a quick search ranged from 500-1300 gigatons. As I pointed before to him, to no avail, it is clear that he is getting the results he wants from his math by plugging in numbers that are not based on what research has found. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/95 "2015-09-02T21:04:52Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Global warming is a very old “invention”. Global warming existed long before man existed. Blaming man-made CO2 for global warming is relatively new. So is man-made CO2 (defining the latter as products of fossil fuels burnt by humans). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/96 "2015-09-02T23:26:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Global warming is a very old “invention”. Global warming existed long before man existed. Blaming man-made CO2 for global warming is relatively new. Species have been going extinct since the earliest species evolved. That, in itself, is[not an argument that humanity has not increased its rate](http://theconversation.com/is-another-mass-extinction-event-on-the-way-5397). (Note, particularly, [Figure 3](https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/7994/area14mp/mqkddnfw-1329955349.jpg).) Arguing that just because something has existed prior to human intervention, then human intervention cannot have an affect upon it is baseless nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/97 "2015-09-03T03:01:44Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > I don’t know if there’s an agreed total since industrialization, but estimates I found from a quick search ranged from 500-1300 gigatons. I’ve got the Earth atmosphere at 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tonnes, so 2 ppmv is 10 x 10[sup]9[/sup] tonnes … perhaps the 500-1300 gigaton number is man’s CO[sub]2[/sub] output … only 10 gigatonnes remain in the atmosphere. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Completely wrong. Just stunningly wrong. To put it mildly, your little diatribe obfuscates the most basic fact that weather is dominated by completely different factors at different timescales, giving rise to entirely different scientific fields of study. The best commonplace example is the difference between the chaos of daily weather and the cyclic predictability of seasonal climate. I agree that day-to-day weather changes appear chaotic to the uninitiated, but these values follow very strict mathematical equations. The atmosphere behaves in a structured and ordered way. If I may offer, we can describe a 5-body gravitational system that would indeed look _very_ chaotic, but we both know these motions follow an exact equation, eminently predictable and very ordered. The geology can introduce a little chaos, but that’s more of a climatologist’s problem than for a grunt weather forecaster. The factors that are averaged are exactly the same as the factors being averaged. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Clearly temperature change isn’t linear. It was cool here a few days ago, and was getting downright chilly at night. Today it’s hot and humid. Apparently the temperature is rising. But we’re approaching fall and it should be getting cooler. So why did it get hotter? It’s a mystery! But I’ll take a bet that on average it will be much cooler in November and December. So then we will conclude that the temperature is falling! Which is correct? But CO2 is supposed to cause warming so how come it will be getting colder? It’s all so confusing! 😃 How far distant are these observations from average, a couple of standard deviations? How is the biology reacting, because that’s the clear and convincing things I see here, the diversity of birds is noticeably increasing. > [@wolfpup](#): > > It depends on the timescale you use, **because different forces are visible only at the appropriate timescales**. Seasonal changes are invisible on daily weather-forecasting timescales because they’re lost in the chaos. They only manifest over timescales of months. The forcings that drive AGW start to become apparent only on decadal timescales and beyond, when their unique signature emerges from the noise of the underlying chaotic variations. And the study of those forcings has nothing to do with daily weather – it’s a vast scientific discipline with many dozens of specialties. Emphases Mine I respectfully disagree, if we’re using “force” in the classical sense, then it is equal to mass times acceleration. I’m sure you’ve seen it expressed **F** = _m (d_ **v** /_dt)_. So it wouldn’t be a force that only acts in ten year intervals, it would have to be something else. A force is visible at _dt_ time intervals. I’m not sure you’re using the word “forcings” correctly … or there’s some definition to the word that doesn’t involve force. It’s the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Law of Thermodynamics that drives AGW theory, so follow the energy … ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/98 "2015-09-03T03:23:54Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Any force that acts on the weather over thirty years will also act over the infinitely small time interval, no exceptions. > > Define “act” > > Do you know what “statistical sample” or “anomaly” or “paradoxical” mean? To “act on” an object is short for to “change the velocity of” an object … like a 100 mph Randy Johnson fastball “is acted on” so that’s it’s velocity is change and it sails over the left-field fence. Do you know what [standard deviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) means, and why it’s almost never included with any of these averages that are posted? Phaw … “statistical sample” is your data set, “statistical sample size” is how many data points you have, “anomaly” is a cherry ripe for the picking [giggle], and “paradoxical” is a result that defies some standard of expectation, which would have to be explicitly defined; like “wet cement” isn’t really wet, it’s dry. ---
**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, 2015, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/99 "2015-09-03T03:38:46Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ve got the Earth atmosphere at 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tonnes, so 2 ppmv is 10 x 10[sup]9[/sup] tonnes … perhaps the 500-1300 gigaton number is man’s CO[sub]2[/sub] output … only 10 gigatonnes remain in the atmosphere. As pointed before, you are still not plugging the proper values, and so you get not explanation of things like the accelerated loss of cap ice. [/snip] > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m not sure you’re using the word “forcings” correctly … or there’s some definition to the word that doesn’t involve force. It’s the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Law of Thermodynamics that drives AGW theory, so follow the energy … You did not follow post #88, that it is clear. And it is also painfully clear that you are ignoring paleoclimatology in your attempt at making climate experts and weather experts to be just the same. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2015, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477/100 "2015-09-03T06:49:51Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I agree that day-to-day weather changes appear chaotic to the uninitiated, but these values follow very strict mathematical equations. The atmosphere behaves in a structured and ordered way. If I may offer, we can describe a 5-body gravitational system that would indeed look _very_ chaotic, but we both know these motions follow an exact equation, eminently predictable and very ordered. The geology can introduce a little chaos, but that’s more of a climatologist’s problem than for a grunt weather forecaster. > > The factors that are averaged are exactly the same as the factors being averaged. So what? Are you trying to make the point that climate is the sum of all weather events over some long period of many decades? Why would anyone care about this useless truism? Here’s another equally useless one: all weather – and therefore climate – is the sum of the motion of the individual molecules of all the atmospheric gases on earth. But we don’t predict the weather by studying individual air molecules. Further, such motion ultimately derives from quantum effects, so perhaps we should consult a quantum physicist to tell us if it will be a nice day for a picnic tomorrow. Or perhaps not. These are pedantic technicalities that are NOT a useful way to study either weather OR climate. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I respectfully disagree, if we’re using “force” in the classical sense, then it is equal to mass times acceleration. I’m sure you’ve seen it expressed **F** = _m (d_ **v** /_dt)_. So it wouldn’t be a force that only acts in ten year intervals, it would have to be something else. A force is visible at _dt_ time intervals. The word “force” is only appropriate here as a loose metaphor and I only used it to parallel your own incorrect use of it in the futile hope of being able to explain the above concepts in your own terms. You use terms like “force”, “velocity”, and “acceleration” and these apply to discrete objects and have no direct meaningful connection to climate. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m not sure you’re using the word “forcings” correctly … or there’s some definition to the word that doesn’t involve force. I am absolutely using “forcing” correctly, and it has nothing to do with force in classical physics. “Forcing” is short for “radiative forcing” (more completely: radiative climate forcing) and refers to a persistent imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation that changes the earth’s long-term energy budget and drives climate change, typically measured as watts per square meter. This should have been obvious as the word is used constantly in climate science and has been used throughout all of these discussions in many threads, so I have to wonder about your sincerity in having a serious conversation. I mentioned some of the current values of CO2 and total anthropogenic forcings in [post #90](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18653926&postcount=90). With that out of the way, let me say this one last time on the hopeful assumption that you’re not just trying to be deliberately obtuse. Radiative forcing is a very small number compared to, say, the solar constant, or the difference in insolation between winter and summer, or from one day to another. However, the solar constant is truly remarkably constant on average over decadal and centennial timescales, and the amount of radiative forcing is in fact very large relative to any natural forcings that the earth typically experiences. So the earth’s energy balance gets inexorably shifted by this persistent forcing – much too small to be detected on on the temporal scale of daily weather, but easily large enough to have catastrophic effects on climate over many decades and centuries. The study of these impacts, again and for the last time, has nothing to do with weather forecasting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credulous-experts-on-global-warming/729477.md?page=6)