# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/101 "2014-01-08T16:00:15Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > No. The Earth’s orbit is _always_ elliptical, and always has almost exactly 365.2-day period. There is some variation in the eccentricity; Earth will approach Sun more closely at perigee in an eccentric orbit, but it will also be further at apogee and, due to Kepler’s Laws, spend more time further away. (My calculus is decades too rusty to derive net heating as a function of eccentricity from first principles. :dubious: ). > > I’ll bet any “barycentric wobble” is far FAR too insignificant to matter. Where Earth’s unequal terrain matters is in summer/perigee alignment due to differences between the Northern land and Southern ocean. > > As to “absolute proof that extreme weather will cause the demise of humans” > [ul][li] I didn’t notice anyone here predicting “demise.” But more importantly,[/li][li] Denial-whiners lose all credibility when they suddenly switch from “AGW isn’t happening” to “AGW isn’t bad.” Pick one point and try to defend it. Don’t just jump around randomly parroting every Denial-whining YouTube you can find.[/li][/ul] This started with the pup’s statement “The “question” you cite has been well and truly answered.” in his post #63. My one point is that it is wrong to state this as a probability of exactly 1. Further, I stated my case why this is wrong. It seems your rebuttal consisted of an _ad hominem_ attack. > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > You may not insult other posters in a Great Debates. If you feel you must do so the BBQ Pit is just a few forums away. There’s a sticky for this board that clearly explains what can be said here and what can’t be said here. But for the record, I’m specifically parroting Bate, Roger R.; Mueller, Donald D.; White, Jerry E. (1971). _Fundamentals of Astrodynamics_. Dover Publications, Inc., New York as expressed in Wikipedia’s article [on perturbations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_%28astronomy%29). Of course these have little effect per orbit, but we have 4.7 billion orbits in hand. Back to my one point, it doesn’t matter how small this effects climate change, it is NOT zero. If you’ve taken Calculus, then you should know just how small a quantity can be and still not be exactly zero. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/102 "2014-01-08T16:45:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > the report you linked to hasn’t been vetted by the IPCC and couldn’t have been vetted by any other organization yet. It’s not like the IPCC hasn’t been wrong in the past so why should anyone assume that the IPCC is unquestionably correct this time? Fine, just saying that you should had admitted that you do not trust them even if it was approved (it was accepted, some details are still being checked), of course after claiming many times that we should wait for the science, it is clear that you will not accept them, no matter if scientists are the ones reviewing already publicized science for the IPCC report. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/103 "2014-01-08T17:12:31Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > But for the record, I’m specifically parroting Bate, Roger R.; Mueller, Donald D.; White, Jerry E. (1971). _Fundamentals of Astrodynamics_. Dover Publications, Inc., New York as expressed in Wikipedia’s article [on perturbations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_%28astronomy%29). Of course these have little effect per orbit, but we have 4.7 billion orbits in hand. Back to my one point, it doesn’t matter how small this effects climate change, it is NOT zero. If you’ve taken Calculus, then you should know just how small a quantity can be and still not be exactly zero. Of course it is not zero, as pointed before there is very little to connect the Milankovitch cycles with the current warming. > **[Milankovitch Cycles](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/milankovitch-cycles/)** > > James Hansen has a new paper (a draft for review), “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change.” We’ll discuss it in a future post. There’s a so-called “r… > [@](#): > > When we integrate time over an entire year, that’s the same as integrating longitude over a full circle. But the longitude integral is of (S/h), which is a constant. So the integral itself is a constant. In other words, it doesn’t depend at all on whether the earth is closest to the sun during northern hemisphere winter, or summer, or spring or fall or whenever. It’s always the same. And that’s true not only for the earth as a whole, but for any specific location on earth. If your location is further from the sun during summer (so a summer day gets less solar energy), summer also lasts longer (you have more summer days), and those two competing factors cancel each other out. Exactly. > > The changing relationship between the seasons and when we’re closest to the sun is the precession cycle, one of the Milankovitch cycles. We’ve just seen that this particular Milankovitch cycle has no effect at all on total annual solar insolation, either for the planet or any single location on it. If that were the whole story, then this particular Milankovitch cycle would have no effect on ice sheet growth or decay. > > But it’s not the whole story. Suppose you live in the extreme north, at latitude 65 deg.N. Suppose further that the precession cycle is such that you’re further from the sun during your summer, and closer during winter. Then midsummer day won’t be as warm as it would otherwise — so you can expect less ice melting. Also, midwinter day won’t be as cold as otherwise, so you can expect the warmer winter air to hold more moisture and produce more snowfall. Less midsummer melt, more midwinter snowfall, both tend to increase ice accumulation and make ice sheets grow. If the precession cycle is reversed, you’ll have warmer midsummer and more ice melt, colder midwinter and less snowfall, both of which tend to decrease ice accumulation and make ice sheets shrink. That’s why the precession cycle actually does affect ice sheet growth and decay. Even though you get exactly the same total solar energy over the entire year, the precession cycle affects when you get that energy during the year. > > Right now, in the northern hemisphere we’re closer to the sun in winter and further in summer — just the right conditions to increase ice growth and cool the planet. The situation is opposite in the southern hemisphere, but since there’s so little land (compared to ocean) in the southern hemisphere there’s a lot less land-based ice as well. So the present condition of the precession cycle favors the increase of glacial ice, especially in the northern hemisphere, just as Hansen said. > > Hertzberg reveals his failure to understand when he asks, “why then we may ask are we now in an Interglacial Warming?” We’re not. We’re in an interglacial warm but not warming. And we’re in that interglacial warm because 12,000 years ago, when we came out of the last glaciation, the precession cycle was opposite its present condition — the northern hemisphere was closest to the sun during summer and furthest during winter, exactly the condition which tends to make ice sheets waste away. The present state of the precession cycle is tending to reverse that, just as Hansen said. > > Hertzberg also said “What Hansen fails to realize is that when we are further from the Sun in NH summer we move more slowly in orbit, and are therefore exposed to the summer sun for a longer period of time.” On the contrary, I’m confident that Hansen is fully aware of that, and fully aware of the fact that it’s through the timing of incoming solar energy, not its yearly total, that the precession cycle affects the growth and decay of ice sheets. But apparently, Hertzberg is not so aware. > > In fact Hertzberg is so confused about the whole issue that he says: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > So 10,000 years ago the earth was further from the sun during NH winter and it spent a longer time on the winter half of the orbit, thus both effects re-enforced each other to give us a marked Glacial Cooling. (Actually the peak in that Glacial Cooling occurred several thousand years earlier than 8,000 BC.) > > > > ``` > > On the contrary, 10,000 years ago the precession cycle so tended to warm the earth that that was near the peak of interglacial warmth. Until now … but the present warmth isn’t due to Milankovitch cycles. > > When it comes to the influence of Milankovitch cycles on glaciation, Hertzberg couldn’t be more confused. His assertion that it’s Hansen who is confused about the issue is just an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/104 "2014-01-08T17:45:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course it is not zero, as pointed before there is very little to connect the Milankovitch cycles with the current warming. Just an aside here, **Gigo** , I’d like for you to stop providing these extensive quotations. Your statement above stands quite well on it’s own, and providing the citation is outstanding. The six column-inches of copy/paste is overkill, in my opinion. If any certainty can be given in a Great Debate, it is your good faith. I hope you feel the same towards me. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/105 "2014-01-08T21:47:44Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Just an aside here, **Gigo** , I’d like for you to stop providing these extensive quotations. Your statement above stands quite well on it’s own, and providing the citation is outstanding. The six column-inches of copy/paste is overkill, in my opinion. If any certainty can be given in a Great Debate, it is your good faith. I hope you feel the same towards me. Sorry, but in my experience how someone deals (or not) with a citation does show a lot. You see, I’m not only posting for you, I post for all that should not take with just faith the musings of an anonymous bloke on the internet (and I’m referring to me here). Specially with a subject like this one where evidence is falling from the ears of many experts. And I do post also to learn, the meta point here is that as some (not you here, but do I have to mention what was done elsewhere?) do indeed concentrate on a poster so as to not deal with what people with more experience are reporting about this issue. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/106 "2014-01-08T22:30:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry, but in my experience how someone deals (or not) with a citation does show a lot. > > You see, I’m not only posting for you, I post for all that should not take with just faith the musings of an anonymous bloke on the internet (and I’m referring to me here). Specially with a subject like this one where evidence is falling from the ears of many experts. And I do post also to learn, the meta point here is that as some (not you here, but do I have to mention what was done elsewhere?) do indeed concentrate on a poster so as to not deal with what people with more experience are reporting about this issue. To whom are you referring? As always, I remain amazed that you don’t seem to grasp _why_ you so often need to break out that boilerplate: since you’re _here,_ making claims and replying to questions, people can naturally ask _you_ follow-up questions – to which your post would then, and often does, suffice minus the rest. You can, of course, then follow up with tons of other stuff if you wish – it does no harm, I suppose – so long as you’ve already done the all-important part of answering the question you’re asked. But like the man said, it’s redundant. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/107 "2014-01-08T22:46:23Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > the report you linked to hasn’t been vetted by the IPCC and couldn’t have been vetted by any other organization yet. It’s not like the IPCC hasn’t been wrong in the past so why should anyone assume that the IPCC is unquestionably correct this time? Ahem!! The IPCC WG1 report has been through a series of draft releases and major reviews throughout its more than three years of development by 258 principal contributors and hundreds of independent reviewers and review editors. The Summary for Policymakers has already been published following line-by-line approval, and the full report will be published later this year with (relatively speaking) only very minor changes, which are documented [here](http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/P36Doc4_WGI-12_Changes-Underlying-Assessment.pdf). So to suggest that this is some kind of tentative document subject to any kind of substantive changes is extremely misleading. Just as misleading, in fact, as making offhand statements about how “the IPCC has been wrong before”. In fact considering the intense scrutiny that the thousands of pages of detailed scientific assessment are subject to by those with an agenda of discrediting the IPCC (see [my post #62 here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16993891&postcount=62) about the massive denialist spin machine) the robustness of the IPCC assessments is actually quite remarkable and a testament to their expertise. The IPCC is far from perfect, but among their imperfections is their inherent conservatism with respect to scientific levels of confidence and the consensus-based nature of their determinations, which makes their conclusions actually far more understated than the much stronger position that many believe is justified by the evidence. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/108 "2014-01-08T23:01:05Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > What is positive feedback for global warming is indeed negative feedback for global cooling. Ice reflects solar energy, rather than absorbing it. This energy is lost to outer space as it occurs at wavelengths the atmosphere in transparent to. Reducing input energy reduces temperature causing more ice to form. This would be a “negative” feedback mechanism if the subject at hand was global warming. > > Hardly BS … although admittedly it has negligible effect at the present time. I’m not sure what is to be gained by such semantic acrobatics. In the post previously linked, Mr. Brazil seemed to be trying to claim that in the context of warming induced by elevated levels of CO2, negative feedbacks would predominate. At least, that was my interpretation of the claim. In fact, there is really no debate about the fact that it’s positive feedbacks that dominate positive CO2 forcing. Where the disagreements arise is in the important area of quantifying them with some level of precision. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/109 "2014-01-08T23:58:48Z")
Many of the points you raise have already been well answered by GIGObuster – I’ll just throw in a few more things. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > If I may ask for a few clarifications: Does carbon dioxide saturation levels decrease with increasing temperature of liquid water? That’s actually opposite what is more common, say sugar and water, where increasing temperature increases solubility. This is a surprising difficult fact to find on the internet, makes me suspect what you say is true. If you could please verify this, I’d be much appreciative. > **[Solubility pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump)** > > In oceanic biogeochemistry, the solubility pump is a physico-chemical process that transports carbon as dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) from the ocean's surface to its interior. > The solubility pump is driven by the coincidence of two processes in the ocean : > Since deep water (that is, seawater in the ocean's interior) is formed under the same surface conditions that promote carbon dioxide solubility, it contains a higher concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon than might be expected from a... > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “grossly different timescales”, this ice age started 30 million years ago. Maybe it’s just my inner astronomer talking, but 30 million years is a rather short time frame. Whatever the physics of 400 ppm that is true today must also be true for the Cryogenian period. It simply has to do with the fact that shorter-term cycles dominate over long-term ones. An analogy might be the fact that we are more concerned about seasonal changes in our lives than we are about ice ages. By the same token, the Quaternary ice age we are in is relevant only at what I’ve called tectonic timescales – the millions of years that it takes tectonic plates to move around. It is completely irrelevant in assessing what anthropogenic CO2 is doing to the planet; in that context, we need to be much more concerned about the regular pattern that’s been established for the past 1.2 million years, since the mid-Pleistocene transition, of 100 Ky glaciation cycles. The fact that we have thrown CO2 levels so far out of the normal range of these cycles that it exceeds normal maxima by more than the total differential between an ice age and an interglacial should be truly frightening. That is, we have introduced a long-term net climate forcing that is greater than the forcing differential between North America as it is today and North America covered by a mile-thick sheet of ice. But we’ve done it in a positive (warming) direction, at the peak of the present Holocene. Where this will take us nobody truly knows. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’m completely baffled by your reference to [Milankovic cycles. I’m not familiar with this work and if I’m to rely on the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovic\_cycles]Wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovic_cycles), then I’ll have to challenge this. It doesn’t matter how the Earth is orientated to the sun, exactly half is exposed to the sun. Well, yes, but Milankovitch cycles (I originally spelled it Milankovic – I’ve seen it both ways) also change things like the Earth’s orbital eccentricity and the orbital plane. But you don’t even have to accept Milakovitch cycles as the trigger for glaciation cycles; it’s clear that once the cycle begins, CO2 is the driver (anyone who doubts this needs to revisit the CO2 radiative transfer equation I linked upthread; this is basic physics). ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/110 "2014-01-09T00:19:37Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > To whom are you referring? > > As always, I remain amazed that you don’t seem to grasp _why_ you so often need to break out that boilerplate: since you’re _here,_ making claims and replying to questions, people can naturally ask _you_ follow-up questions – to which your post would then, and often does, suffice minus the rest. Nowhere did I say that they can’t, only that they will get more from what the experts report, as I always say, an educated opinion is better than an ignorant one. BTW when you come with that “To whom are you referring?” and insisting that I must have a problem: it is also an attempt at personalizing the issue, look at what **the experts _claim_**. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You can, of course, then follow up with tons of other stuff if you wish – it does no harm, I suppose – so long as you’ve already done the all-important part of answering the question you’re asked. But like the man said, it’s redundant. And thank you for showing all that you are not willing to deal with that “redundancy” what a surprise that how wrong contrarians got an item is not the lesson. ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/111 "2014-01-09T00:44:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW when you come with that “To whom are you referring?” and insisting that I must have a problem: it is also an attempt at personalizing the issue It’s not _my_ attempt at personalizing the issue; you mentioned that ‘some do indeed concentrate on a poster,’ threw in a parenthetical along the way, and left me wondering which persons you were referring to. > [@](#): > > nd thank you for showing all that you are not willing to deal with that “redundancy” what a surprise that how wrong contrarians got an item is not the lesson. I have no idea what you’re going on about. I didn’t take the contrarian side; I have nothing to add, or dispute, when it comes to the subject in question. I merely wanted to emphasize that, when someone asks you a question, and you give an answer that satisfies him – and you then add a great deal more, and he explains why you don’t need to add all the extra stuff – that I (a) commend you for supplying the answer before doing the rest, and that I (b) don’t see why you bother with the rest, but, again, full marks for getting the important part right. ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/112 "2014-01-09T01:07:00Z")
> [@cmangle](#): > > If we are in mass global warming, how is it two icebreakers are stuck in Antarctica ( **During summer** ) and **95%** of the United States is was below freezing ( **WELL BELOW** ) for the last two days?? These are valid points that I’ve seen brought up before so I’ll bite. 🙂 Yep, it’s been really cold over most of North America, and in some parts of the world. What matters is global average temperature. NOAA hasn’t published the final numbers for December yet but as of November, the year 2013 was on track to be the fourth-warmest year on record and globally November was confirmed as the warmest November ever recorded. There’s also [this](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/01/polar-vortex-causes-hundreds-of-injuries-as-people-making-snide-remarks-about-climate-change-are-pun.html#entry-more). 😃 Regarding the Antarctic. Yes, it’s summer, but it’s early summer and at this time of year there is on average still about 2.5 to 3 times the amount of sea ice as there is at the seasonal minimum. Also, both polar regions are experiencing ice loss as a result of global warming. In the Arctic, which is predominantly ocean bordering land areas, we see it as decreases in overall sea ice cover. The Antarctic is almost the diametric opposite, basically a land mass surrounded by ocean. There, the predominant ice cover is the continental ice sheet, which overall is losing mass at the rate of about 200 to as much as 300 GT per year. The sea ice is largely seasonal and not an important indicator of climate change since most of it disappears by the end of summer though a combination of melt and drifting away. In fact, there is some evidence that freshwater outflow from the melting ice sheet is – ironically – contributing to increased amounts of coastal sea ice. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/113 "2014-01-09T01:53:14Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > What is positive feedback for global warming is indeed negative feedback for global cooling. Ice reflects solar energy, rather than absorbing it. This energy is lost to outer space as it occurs at wavelengths the atmosphere in transparent to. Reducing input energy reduces temperature causing more ice to form. This would be a “negative” feedback mechanism if the subject at hand was global warming. No…You misunderstand the term “negative feedback” and “positive feedback”. A positive feedback doesn’t necessarily cause warming; it simply magnifies whatever perturbation occurs. You are imagining a cooling perturbation and finding that it gets magnified, i.e., the increase in ice caused by this perturbation leads to further cooling. That is a positive feedback because it is magnifying the original perturbation. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/114 "2014-01-09T02:13:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Many of the points you raise have already been well answered by GIGObuster – I’ll just throw in a few more things. uh oh … I generally don’t read what **Gigo** posts … maybe we should close off the current debate with a vote. Have I made my case for restraining ourselves from statement of certainty, or do the rebuttals prevail? I’ll cast my sixteen votes for the rebuttals to my first two points, but I’m going to stand on my last point: That IIPC study doesn’t include certainties, why should we think they are certain? > [@wolfpup](#): > > we need to be much more concerned about the regular pattern that’s been established for the past 1.2 million years, since the mid-Pleistocene transition, of 100 Ky glaciation cycles. Would not the 41Ky glaciation cycle then stand as counter-example? You’ve used the word “bullshit” and I’m not clear how that applies to semantic acrobatics. This is about energy in, energy out. If they’re the same, temperature stays the same. Increase energy in and/or decrease energy out, temperature goes up … simple … Where’s the energy? Answer that question and you’ll find your problem. ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/115 "2014-01-09T03:17:03Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’ll cast my sixteen votes for the rebuttals to my first two points, but I’m going to stand on my last point: That IIPC study doesn’t include certainties, why should we think they are certain? The IPCC assessments most assuredly do include well-calibrated language to express formally defined uncertainty ranges where this is applicable; where it’s not meaningful to broad general conclusions, controversies and uncertainties are discussed in the supporting detailed assessments. Herewith a few such statements from the IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers: - Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased - Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is _virtually certain_ that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it _likely_ warmed between the 1870s and 1971. - Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (_high confidence_) - The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (_high confidence_). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m - Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750. - Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. - Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (_very high confidence_). - Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is _extremely likely_ that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Would not the 41Ky glaciation cycle then stand as counter-example? It would, if any such cycle was **presently** occurring. But it isn’t. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > You’ve used the word “bullshit” and I’m not clear how that applies to semantic acrobatics. This is about energy in, energy out. If they’re the same, temperature stays the same. Increase energy in and/or decrease energy out, temperature goes up … simple … Where’s the energy? Answer that question and you’ll find your problem. Eh? The total amount of incoming solar energy remains the same; the radiative transfer balance is changed by the increasing amounts of GHG’s. More thermal energy is being re-radiated back to earth instead of escaping into space, hence the earth’s temperature is going up. Looks like I found the problem! ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/116 "2014-01-09T04:36:08Z")
It’s the nature of what can be said in a peer-reveiwed environment. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Eh? The total amount of incoming solar energy remains the same; the radiative transfer balance is changed by the increasing amounts of GHG’s. More thermal energy is being re-radiated back to earth instead of escaping into space, hence the earth’s temperature is going up. Looks like I found the problem! The only thing constant about solar radiation is that is never constant. I’ve offered [orbital perturbations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_%28astronomy%29) as cause, I’d like to hear any disputes with this material. There’s a quote from Sir Issac Newton in note 3, I honestly thought this was common knowledge. If I might prey upon one of your earlier metaphors, the solar radiation would be like the outside temperature. Even though this is increasing, some dumbass cranked the carbon dioxide thermostat all the way up … and the water vapor is just cookin’ away. Man, that bill will be expensive. You tell me that’s a highly likely scenario, I’m gonna say your right. If you tell me it is certain, I’m gonna say your wrong. If you tell me it’s a bad thing, I’m gonna say that’s philosophy … … and a thing most worthy of Great Debate [wolfish grin]. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/117 "2014-01-09T04:46:32Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Depends on what time frame you’re referring to, doesn’t it. Not really, as long as you pick a long enough time frame to show the true trend. The two charts you referred to had different starting dates, one 1880 and the other 1950, yet they both showed the the global temperature is increasing, while hitting temporary plateaus multiple times. > [@](#): > > Currently, the global temp has plateaued which makes the previous IPCC guesstimations wrong. No it doesn’t. Every forecast has a range for a given future data point, and in the IPCC forecasts the bottom of that range is always lower than the prior year. That’s pretty standard in most forecast models. The trend is upward, has been upward, and sure seems to remain upward, despite the fact that we’ve “plateaued” many times in recent decades. > [@](#): > > Considering a much longer period of time, the Earth’s global temp has increased since the last ice age. If you look at the period between the last two ice ages, you’ll notice that the global temp increased until it began to decrease, which lead to the last ice age. And the cycle began again. Do you understand that the previous holocene had a smaller anomaly variance in its thousands of years of growth than we’ve had in the past hundred? Hell, the last 30 years have the same anomaly variance as the estimations of the 2000+ years of growth during that period. This ain’t a cycle here. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/118 "2014-01-09T04:55:13Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (shortened for clarity)Are you in charge of who can participate in the Great Debates forum? 😕 > > Do you decide what can and can not be posted in the Great Debates forum? 😕 I’m just trying to help you out, since you can’t seem to make up your mind what you actually believe. [QUOTE=doorhinge] I notice that both of your linked articles contain charts that show the global average temp has plateaued for over a decade. That’s not “increasing”. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=doorhinge] The “globe” has been warming since the last ice age. [/QUOTE] While I realize that it gets confusing when one regurgitates the various arguments trotted out by the deniers, those sure seem to be at odds to me. Or we could go with the fact that your first quote focuses on 10 years of data from charts of 60-130 years and just note that you’re cherry-picking, instead of disagreeing with yourself. Either “flip-flopping” or “cherrypicking” work for me, so I’ll let you decide. ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/119 "2014-01-09T05:56:22Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > The only thing constant about solar radiation is that is never constant. Correct, but it is **constant enough** for our purposes, within the sorts of timeframes we are talking about, and indeed constant enough for us to give it the provocative name “solar constant”! 🙂 > [@](#): > > The solar constant … is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) at solar minimum and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar maximum. > [Solar constant - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant) The solar constant directly correlates with incoming total solar irradiation (TSI) incident on the upper atmosphere which is a relative constant within very narrow limits of variance. The actual temperature of the earth on average is determined by the total insolation penetrating the atmosphere and reaching the surface (mitigated by clouds and atmospheric aerosols) and the amount escaping back into space (also mitigated by clouds, but most significantly mitigated by greenhouse gases of which CO2 is dominant). Working through the math and the physics, incremental CO2 becomes the overwhelmingly dominant variable. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/120 "2014-01-09T13:53:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Fine, just saying that you should had admitted that you do not trust them even if it was approved (it was accepted, some details are still being checked), of course after claiming many times that we should wait for the science, it is clear that you will not accept them, no matter if scientists are the ones reviewing already publicized science for the IPCC report. I’m willing to wait for the new IPCC report to be officially released AND PROPERLY VETTED by independent organizations. By “properly vetted”, I mean being able to see the actual human inputs used for the IPCC’s computer modeling as opposed to the IPCC’s history of not releasing their inputs and eventually “losing” them when it appeared that the data would have to be made public. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=7)