# Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984 "2014-01-05T23:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**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 17, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/561 "2014-02-17T18:15:30Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Just kidding. But seriously, if the oceans actually are cooler, where did the heat go? And that is the problem of cherry picking, one misses the big picture. > [@](#): > > With the readings coming in for 2013 — atmosphere, ocean surface and the deep ocean — it becomes increasingly obvious that anyone saying planetary warming has slowed down is clearly misinformed. > > Criticisms of the misinformed aside, according to reports from NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, 2013 was the world’s 4th hottest on record since temperature measures began in 1880. All this despite ENSO conditions remaining neutral in the Eastern Pacific and deep ocean heat content continuing to rapidly rise while sucking a portion of that heat out of the atmosphere. > > The NCDC measure found numerous regions in which temperatures were the hottest ever recorded including a large swath of Australia, a broad stretch of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to New Guinea and the Philippines, an area larger than Texas at the heart of the Asian Continent, and multiple other locations ranging from south of Svalbard to East Africa to the Indian Ocean to the Northern and Southern Pacific. Aside from these record hot zones, over 70 percent of the land and ocean surface measured came up either hotter than average or much hotter than average while 28% of the globe experienced average temperatures and less than 2% of the Earth’s surface experienced cooler than average temperatures. > > Notably, no regions of the globe saw record coldest temperatures and the only zone coming up cooler than normal cropped up in the Southern Ocean just north of Antarctica. > > NASA found 2013 to be the 7th hottest on record and the 2nd hottest non El Nino year on record. > > Helpfully, NASA also put together a graph of global temperature averages as measured since 1950 showing that atmospheric warming has continued unabated despite much false and inaccurate press coverage of a ‘global warming hiatus.’ > [@](#): > > Yet, according to these excellent graphs produced by Larry Hamilton for The Arctic Ice Blog, world ocean heat content has been rising by leaps and bounds over the past few years, especially in the deep ocean where warming puts at risk the most dangerous of outcomes — methane release and anoxia. > > (Image source: L Hamilton. Image data: NOAA. Produced for The Arctic Ice Blog. Note the extraordinarily steep slope indicating deep ocean warming since 1985.) > > The top graph shows ocean heat content increases in the first 700 meters of ocean water. The bottom graph shows ocean heat content in the first 2000 meters of ocean water. Note that ocean heat content gains for the deep ocean (2000 meter graph) are more rapid by 25% than heat content gains in the shallower ocean. Meanwhile, both graphs show a very rapid accumulation of heat, especially through recent years during which the so-called global warming hiatus was in effect. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/562 "2014-02-17T18:16:14Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > You’re skipping the part of that zone representation model that shows most of the world had a 0.2 to 0.5 C of warming, with a few areas having greater than that in warming and a few areas showing cooling. I did no such thing. > [@Farin](#): > > YYou can argue with predictions (I certainly do) of doom and gloom and the proposed solutions (which I also do), but arguing that the data doesn’t bear out the fact that the globe as a whole is warming is a flawed premise to start with. I’ve never even hinted at that. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/563 "2014-02-17T18:16:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Oh we know, and it’s just terrible at actual data for a century, almost everywhere except Europe and some of the US. > > As some would point out, global warming doesn’t mean everywhere will be warmer. Looking at the parts that are getting colder is not some useless exercise, as some seem to claim. In fact, as we see, noting the colder winters are bad enough to pull the entire global mean down to a flat line, that actually means something. > > Especially the places that have to deal with the colder winters. That the experts predicted milder winters, that is the real turd in the punchbowl for the alarmists mentality. Do you have any cites that show the paucity of data for the globe? Most of the coasts and water data I have seen are fairly reliable. It’s the less habited and/or harder to reach areas inland (and the polar areas) that show less than a century of data. ---
**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 17, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/564 "2014-02-17T18:17:44Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Now calm down, you just finished lecturing on how we should listen to experts, not try to figure things out all by our idiot selves. > > You can’t have it both ways. The conclusion is that you do not listen to the experts anyhow, glad we figured that out. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/565 "2014-02-17T18:19:59Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I did no such thing. By pointing to a small (relatively) area showing some cooling, you did. Focusing on the regional effects to dispell something that is global overall is not useful when dealing with an overall that is an average. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I’ve never even hinted at that. You have repeatedly dismissed climate change because the winters are getting colder which is at odds with a subset of global climate models. If that hasn’t been your aim in this thread, you haven’t communicated your aims clearly enough for any of the posters you’re arguing with to catch on. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/566 "2014-02-17T18:21:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Now calm down, you just finished lecturing on how we should listen to experts, not try to figure things out all by our idiot selves. > > You can’t have it both ways. You know, I get the feeling that almost any person in this thread could look at my last post and tell you not only exactly what I meant, but exactly why your response is worthy of scorn and derision. I’m done here. You are not worth my time, or anyone else’s. I applaud anyone who keeps debunking your crap, but if I keep this up I’m probably going to say something that will get me banned, so I’m just going to put you on ignore, like I should have back when you claimed Climategate had any meaning. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/567 "2014-02-17T18:22:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > With the readings coming in for 2013 — atmosphere, ocean surface and the deep ocean — it becomes increasingly obvious that anyone saying planetary warming has slowed down is clearly misinformed. take a look at [the trend for winter](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), from 1992-2013 Compare [to the previous trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1980&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) You can clearly see how things changed. Why is a completely different topic. [Warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=1980&year2=1992&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [Cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=1998&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) (sort of) To see actual cooling [you need this trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) ---
**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 17, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/568 "2014-02-17T18:25:06Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > take a look at [the trend for winter](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), from 1992-2013 > > Compare [to the previous trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1980&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > You can clearly see how things changed. Why is a completely different topic. > > [Warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=1980&year2=1992&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > [Cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=1998&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) (sort of) > > To see actual cooling [you need this trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Already explained, but deftly ignored by you, there is a reason why 1998 was declared an outlier and not good to use to claim that the warming rate was going higher than estimated, serious scientists do not cherry pick. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/569 "2014-02-17T18:28:02Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Do you have any cites that show the paucity of data for the globe? The information is on the GISS site. Hell, if you are obsessive like myself you can actually look at all the temperature stations they use. Very few have data from before the 40s, or complete records for a century. > [@Farin](#): > > You have repeatedly dismissed climate change because the winters are getting colder which is at odds with a subset of global climate models. No, I didn’t do that. You have to blame actual climate scientists, and of course the data. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/570 "2014-02-17T18:45:37Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > No, I didn’t do that. You have to blame actual climate scientists, and of course the data. Then I ask that you please state your views on the subject clearly. Is the climate changing? Is it due in full, in part, or in no part to CO2 or other manmade sources?What other nuances do you hold as a part of your set of views? ---
**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:** [February 17, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/571 "2014-02-17T20:07:37Z")
Hmmm… some of the recent discussions definitely have me thinking along the same lines as some others – that I should just start ignoring a certain poster. And these would be a few more reasons why… > [@FXMastermind](#): > > There is an obvious problem with such flawed logic. We know what happens when there is a warmer arctic, it happens each year. The polar jet streams weaken and move poleward, reducing the extreme weather. It’s when there is a lot of high pressure (cold) air at the pole that we see extreme weather. I enjoy a decent debate but this is a curious mixture of unscientific nonsense and words that just don’t even parse in the English language – “polar jet streams move poleward” – what does that even _ **mean** _? 😛 What actually happens is that climate forcings have been driving _ **subtropical** _ jet streams poleward. In the Arctic, weaker temperature differentials between the Arctic and the rest of the planet due to amplification in the warming Arctic tend to weaken northern zonal winds and Rossby waves and tend to cause them to meander **away from the poles** and remain in place for long periods. I described that earlier, but here is [an article in the popular media](http://www.livemint.com/Politics/tpqUX2lqPAtXTj0HLMlXFO/Polar-jet-stream-shift-could-prompt-harsher-winters-in-Nor.html) that clearly refers to the same phenomenon and research and to which I earlier [linked abstracts to the relevant papers](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17110283&postcount=501); this popular article is written with less scientific rigor but it might be conducive to better understanding by someone who so consistently gets basic science so completely wrong. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Gosh darn, an anonymous internet crank insults a leading researcher, what a surprise. Who should I listen to? That’s a tough one. > > Once again, the pseudo-scientific approach is to object to the source of something, like it means the scientist has to be wrong because of what paper reported the story. :smack: > > Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, one of the Met Office’s most senior experts, he can’t be trusted because of the paper that reported what he said. > > And also somebody on the internet said he is wrong. > > Priceless. As I already explained, the issue seems to be that I pointed to research papers describing a phenomenon that, according to the _Daily Mail_, Professor Collins supposedly said doesn’t exist. I indicated before that the Daily Fail is a disreputable denialist tabloid and as **GIGObuster** correctly pointed out with examples, they have engaged in this kind of calculated and intentional deception before. And sure enough, Mat Collins and the Met Office [have now issued a clarification](http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/met-office-in-the-media-16-february-2014-response-by-professor-mat-collins-and-the-met-office/) correcting the misrepresentations in the Daily Fail. Specifically, that what Collins actually said doesn’t differ from the statements of the Met Office chief scientist that I quoted. We have once again a case of scientific conservatism saying that our understanding of circulation changes driven by climate change is necessarily incomplete (and in any case it’s difficult to attribute any specific extreme weather event to climate change except statistically over the long term, and I’ve said this several times). And then we have a disreputable tabloid distorting that into “no way, no how is climate change responsible for the UK floods”. And then someone here quoting that as scientific fact, because it came from “a senior scientist.” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/572 "2014-02-17T20:30:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > As I already explained, the issue seems to be that I pointed to research papers describing a phenomenon that, according to the _Daily Mail_, Professor Collins supposedly said doesn’t exist. I indicated before that the Daily Fail is a disreputable denialist tabloid and as **GIGObuster** correctly pointed out with examples, they have engaged in this kind of calculated and intentional deception before. At this point, if you are willing to cite the Daily Mail on climate science, then you either have absolutely no concept of evaluating evidence, or you are banking on those around you lacking that capacity. It’s really that simple. They have lied so consistently and constantly on climate change that anyone who would take them seriously is simply not worth talking to. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/573 "2014-02-17T21:46:18Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Then I ask that you please state your views on the subject clearly. I already did, in regards to the topic. My first post was long and extensive, stating clearly my thoughts on the questions and concepts in the OP. > [@Farin](#): > > Is the climate changing? Now that is another issue. Certainly the best evidence shows that we have been in a warming world since the 80s, with a cooling period before that, with yet another warming before that, with more extensive changes during the last 400 years. So yes, the climate is changing, but currently in a most strange manner. An extensive explanation would require several topics on the matters. [ > [@Farin](#): > > Is it due in full, in part, or in no part to CO2 or other manmade sources?What other nuances do you hold as a part of your set of views? It’s complicated, and if I am going to respond at length, it should be in a topic on the subject, This one being about the mind set of “those” people, the ones using fossil fuels and killing us all. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I enjoy a decent debate but this is a curious mixture of unscientific nonsense and words that just don’t even parse in the English language – “polar jet streams move poleward” – what does that even _ **mean** _? Not sure if sarcasm or not. Educate yourself. > [@](#): > > there are two main jet streams in the northern hemisphere. While jet streams do exist in the southern hemisphere, they are strongest between latitudes of 30°N and 60°N. The weaker subtropical jet stream is located closer to 30°N. The location of these jet streams shift throughout the year however and they are said to “follow the sun” since **they move north with warm weather** and south with cold weather. > > **Jet streams are also stronger in the winter because there is a large contrast between colliding Arctic and tropical air masses**. > > In the summer, the temperature difference is less extreme between the air masses and **the jet stream is weaker**. > **[What Is the Jet Stream and How Does it Influence the Climate](https://www.thoughtco.com/the-jet-stream-1434437)** > > A comprehensive overview of the jet stream and its impact on global climate and the world's weather. Just like I said. > **[Jet stream](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream)** > > Jet streams are fast flowing, narrow air currents in the Earth's atmosphere. > The main jet streams are located near the altitude of the tropopause and are westerly winds, flowing west to east around the globe. The northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere each have a polar jet around their respective polar vortex at around 30,000 ft (5.7 mi; 9.1 km) above sea level and typically travelling at around 110 mph (180 km/h) although often considerably faster. Closer to the equator and somewhat... ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/574 "2014-02-17T22:41:25Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I already did, in regards to the topic. My first post was long and extensive, stating clearly my thoughts on the questions and concepts in the OP. Now that is another issue. Certainly the best evidence shows that we have been in a warming world since the 80s, with a cooling period before that, with yet another warming before that, with more extensive changes during the last 400 years. So yes, the climate is changing, but currently in a most strange manner. An extensive explanation would require several topics on the matters. [ It’s complicated, and if I am going to respond at length, it should be in a topic on the subject, This one being about the mind set of “those” people, the ones using fossil fuels and killing us all. We are already so far from the topic at hand and the arguments between yourself and your adversaries so far afield of the OP that it’s useless at this point to attempt to constrain it back to the thread topic. However, if that’s the way you feel, I invite you to open a thread with your views and evidence up for debate. if you feel like you don’t want to deal with the people who are peppering you with hot sauce in this thread, feel free to PM me and dissect the subject at hand in whatever way makes sense to you. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/575 "2014-02-17T22:49:55Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > We are already so far from the topic at hand and the arguments between yourself and your adversaries so far afield of the OP that it’s useless at this point to attempt to constrain it back to the thread topic. > > However, if that’s the way you feel, I invite you to open a thread with your views and evidence up for debate. if you feel like you don’t want to deal with the people who are peppering you with hot sauce in this thread, feel free to PM me and dissect the subject at hand in whatever way makes sense to you. Why bother? The only point even remotely present when “debating” here is to show the world that his arguments are crap. Taking it to PMs is like debating Kent Hovind without the benefit of showing everyone how wrong he is publicly - a complete and utter waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/576 "2014-02-17T23:11:36Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Why bother? The only point even remotely present when “debating” here is to show the world that his arguments are crap. Taking it to PMs is like debating Kent Hovind without the benefit of showing everyone how wrong he is publicly - a complete and utter waste of time. Why bother fighting climate change at all? We aren’t going to convince the world nations to cut. No one has made any of their previously agreed targets, and the new set of targets are probably not going to be reached, either, and they were far less aggressive. Why don’t we just strip naked in the sunshine, find a spot on the huge new beaches opening up, some Corona and limes and just enjoy ourselves as we get life-ending sunburns on our dangly bits in 60-100 years? Or not. Not might be good, too. 😃 ---
**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:** [February 17, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/577 "2014-02-17T23:16:32Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Not sure if sarcasm or not. Educate yourself. > [The Jet Stream - An Overview in Geography](http://geography.about.com/od/climate/a/jetstream.htm) > > Just like I said. > > [Jet stream - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream) Ha ha – wonderful! No, I’m not going to ignore you just yet, you’re just much too entertaining! 😃 (At least, for the moment.) You’ve managed in one fell swoop to [ol] [li]confuse seasonal changes with long-term climatic changes, [/li] [li]to get the effect of jet stream speeds exactly backwards, and then on top of that [/li] [li]to get polar jet behavior so confusingly muddled that it’s not even wrong, it’s just nonsense.[/li][/ol] And to support it all you post some grade-school drivel about how the seasons work, and how _subtropical_ jets move poleward _in the summer_. Hello? The discussion here is about climate change. But I honestly think that your true objective here has nothing to do with climate and is an exercise in pushing the boundaries of civil tolerance to see how soon you can get me or someone else to break the site rules. It’s not going to work. I’m just going to patiently explain why you don’t have a clue. 🙂 This is what I said (look it up): “What actually happens is that climate forcings have been driving _subtropical_ jet streams poleward.” You can find this [in this part](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Longer-term_climatic_changes) of your own Googled Wikipedia link. As to the earlier nonsense of “the polar jet streams weaken and move poleward, reducing the extreme weather”, you’ve managed to get both that concept and the NH polar jet pretty much backwards. The first you’ve got exactly backwards: stronger jets over the Arctic are the norm; it’s their weakening that contributes to extreme weather. The second you’ve got muddled and half-ass backwards; the major observed effect is a more meridional pattern, which means that at least some of it meanders to more _southerly_ latitudes than usual. That is just simple fact; the AGW connection is what’s been credibly hypothesized in the Francis, Vavrus et al. (2012) research and the recent presentation at the AAAS. More here: > [@](#): > > Over the last decade a tendency has developed for a more meridional Northern Hemisphere polar jet-stream pattern than previously, which has led to unusual regional climate anomalies with severe socio-economic impacts across the Northern Hemisphere. These include in 2010 record floods in Pakistan, intense heat waves and forest fires in Russia, in 2012 record surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the wettest summer ever recorded in England (which followed a record wet summer there in 2007) as well as further heatwaves in the US and Russia, and in 2010 and 2011 some enigmatically cold winter spells on both sides of the Atlantic and in eastern Asia (e.g. December 2010 was the coldest December since 1890 in the Central England Temperature record). While these regional climate anomalies are directly attributable to changes in the jet stream, the ultimate drivers of these changes remain insufficiently well understood, with an urgent need to properly quantify them in global and regional climate models to improve predictive capability. As a result of the polar amplification of global warming and declining Arctic sea-ice (which reached a record low minimum seasonal extent in summer 2012 following a string of previous unusually low years since 2007), more heat is released from the polar ocean to the overlying atmosphere, which reduces the meridional surface temperature gradient and tends to weaken the polar vortex and mid-latitude westerly winds, with resulting jet-stream changes as noted above. [http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/meetings/past-meetings/polar-jet-stream-13](http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/meetings/past-meetings/polar-jet-stream-13) ---
**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 17, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/578 "2014-02-17T23:28:02Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Why bother fighting climate change at all? We aren’t going to convince the world nations to cut. No one has made any of their previously agreed targets, and the new set of targets are probably not going to be reached, either, and they were far less aggressive. :dubious: [http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index\_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index_en.htm) > [@](#): > > Due to measures being taken at European level as well by Member States at national level, the EU is well on track towards meeting its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and for 2020. By reducing emissions since 1990 while expanding its economy, the EU has successfully shown that economic growth and emission cuts are not contradictory. See latest progress report. > > … > > First Kyoto period targets for other Member States > > Of the 13 countries which have joined the EU since the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, all except Cyprus and Malta have individual emission reduction commitments under the first period of the Protocol. Hungary and Poland have commitments to reduce emissions of the basket of six gases by 6% in the 2008-2012 period compared to their base year or period. Croatia has a 5% reduction commitment from 1990 levels. The other eight Member States have commitments to reduce by 8% against various base years. > > All 11 countries with commitments are on course to meet or over-achieve their first Kyoto period targets. > [@Farin](#): > > Why don’t we just strip naked in the sunshine, find a spot on the huge new beaches opening up, some Corona and limes and just enjoy ourselves as we get life-ending sunburns on our dangly bits in 60-100 years? > > Or not. Not might be good, too. > 😃 🙂 Not good yeah, but I do not think that we should follow the advise of Madame de Pompadour. > **[Brewer's: After us, the Deluge](https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/after-us-deluge)** > > “I care not what happens when I am dead and gone.” So said Mdme. de Pompadour, the mistress of Louis XV. (1722–1764). Metternich, the Austrian statesman (1773–1859), is credited with the same: but probably he simply quoted the words of the French... Specially when there are examples of countries meeting the targets, what we need is indeed the will to push aside the ones in power that are being unreasonable regarding what we should do. ---
**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:** [February 17, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/579 "2014-02-17T23:41:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Specially when there are examples of countries meeting the targets, what we need is indeed the will to push aside the ones in power that are being unreasonable regarding what we should do. The “will” isn’t going to happen when there is rampant denialism, scientific ignorance, and the outright falsification of science. These things are unfortunately very prevalent right now in the US, Canada, Australia, and other countries with resource economies and high consumerism. Speaking for myself, I am far from a fanatic about climate change mitigation or environmentalism in general. Of course we need to balance costs and quality of life with the urgency and pace of emissions reductions. But if I’m a fanatic about anything it’s about the fair presentation of facts and integrity in media. I have never in a fairly long life seen the incredible scope and magnitude of factual distortions that are occurring right now on the subject of climate change. There is a robust and active industry of unprecedented scope dedicated to ensuring that we _ **don’t** _ make fact-based decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/580 "2014-02-18T00:23:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :dubious: > > [http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index\_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index_en.htm) The problem with that EU boasting is that at the time they signed onto the Kyoto protocols, they were already on track to the targets in them because they were bringing enhanced nuclear capability online. Nuclear plants were being started in Eastern Europe as part of the whole infrastructure investment from Western Europe that started after the wall fell. The 1990’s data that went into Kyoto for Europe had a heavy tilt because of the old Soviet power production plants that they were already in the process of removing due to inefficiency and not emissions when they first met in 1995 and were into a bunch of construction when they ratified in 1997. The only real change was to implement extra solar and wind power as those technologies became viable. And, while I think this is great that they are using renewable (Which I consider nuclear a part of) as a primary driver, I think that they should have had more stringent targets in the first place. We have had considerable renewable investment, also, and will never come close to EU’s position for the only reason that they were about five years into an upgrade plan in 1997 that coincided with the treaty goals. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Specially when there are examples of countries meeting the targets, what we need is indeed the will to push aside the ones in power that are being unreasonable regarding what we should do. I think the US is fairly on-track for what it’s doing, though. Despite Richard Alley’s assumptions of the future he bases a cost comparison on, we’ll hurt a lot of our poor people if we jump up energy costs. We could be a bit more aggressive, but: -We have a huge R&D budget on new technologies -We are moving our fleet of cars over to better efficiency standards (as well as moving those of us with cash to burn over to direct electrical motors, letting us be as renewable as our power source) -We are giving tax credits to solar installations -We are trying out alternative transportation technologies (for better and worse) Now, I personally believe that we should push nuclear capabilities and directly finance solar installations on houses in areas with a certain sunshine-day requirements (e.g. if your region gets an average of, say, 200 days of sun a year - free solar for every house!), but we are coming along in terms of renewables. A lot of even the coal plants are getting dragged kicking and screaming to better scrubbing technologies that reduce their overall impact. Even the [EPA’s data](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html) shows that we are slowly dropping our consumption. We are only about 600-800 mmt away from the 1990 target and we aren’t even signed onto Kyoto. That’s good news. At least…to me. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=30)