# Global Warming for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172 "2012-01-30T08:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/241 "2012-02-09T18:06:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yep, no easy pickings. > > And right out of the bat in his interview he goes for the already debunked point that it has not warmed in the recent years. > > [Still Going Down the Up Escalator](http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html) So, not even one of Germnay’s chief environmentalists with a Ph.D. in chemistry, working in renewable energy is good enough? Of course, imediately you go to “debate generic denier” and link to a supposed answer to a miniscule part of the article. The misleading graph your link shows a short term cooling trend from 02 to11 (it’s misleading because it counters a non-existing position). > [@](#): > > Figure 1: Short-term cooling trends from Jan '70 to Nov '77, Nov '77 to Nov '86, Sep '87 to Nov '96, Mar '97 to Oct '02, and \*\*Oct '02 to Dec '11 (blue) \*\*vs. the 42-year warming trend (Jan '70 to Dec '11; red) using NOAA NCDC land-ocean data. Your very own link (which in no way deals with the heart of the article) says that there’s been a cooling trend (not even starting from the 1998). Of course it shows the 40-year warming trend. If you disagree with your own pet website Of course, no mention of the real allegations, made by a respected member of the environmental and scientific community. I do hope your answers, if any, don’t start with “he’s a denier”. 1. No catastrophe (He doesn’t say no warming, before you try to counter that and not the real stuff). 2. The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out. 3. The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated. 4. There are two effects: the declining solar activity, as well as the fluctuations in ocean currents, such as the 60-year Pacific oscillation, which was in a positive warm phase from 1977 to 2000 and, since 2000, has led to cooling as a result of its decline. Their contribution to the change in temperature has also been wrongly attributed to CO2. 5. They [IPCC lead authors] claim that they are using 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers. But 5,000 of them are so-called gray literature, **which are not peer-reviewed sources** [my bolding] 6. In addition to carbon dioxide, we also have black soot, for example. It creates 55 percent of the warming effect of CO2 7. These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years. ---
**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 9, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/242 "2012-02-09T18:53:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, not even one of Germnay’s chief environmentalists with a Ph.D. in chemistry, working in renewable energy is good enough? No, because he is not an expert on this and he needs to publish to show how wrong others are, an interview just only shows his opinion, nothing else. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Of course, imediately you go to “debate generic denier” and link to a supposed answer to a miniscule part of the article. > > The misleading graph your link shows a short term cooling trend from 02 to11 (it’s misleading because it counters a non-existing position). Of course, as if we needed any more evidence, this shows that you are not capable of noticing who is misleading. As pointed out before independent statisticians reported already that it is dishonest to claim there is no warming trend going on. And as you only go then to just killing the messenger points, it remains that you are just resorting to illogical rhetoric to make your sorry points. And the rest is dismissed as it has been dealt before and it is just more evidence of the unreliability of your latest “champion” ---
**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 9, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/243 "2012-02-09T18:58:26Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I merely note, as always, that they take the time to claim a given span of years is insignificant to falsifying the stuff – and then to spell out that a longer span of years would be significant to falsifying the stuff – and then for some reason can’t spare even one moment longer to specify; four words would do it, but they can only be bothered to say that more is needed to prove 'em wrong without, y’know, saying how much more. Moot point as always, the point here is that you may sound that you are doing something useful, but in context it is just wasting time. The fact that paint will dry is not the issue :), and I would not be surprised that the people at Velspar and Sherwin Williams have researchers watching it dry, the point is that for practical purposes and the evidence at hand, it is unlikely that we will find paint that will take longer to dry from the rates of the speed of dryness that they have found before. So, as there is no request from you and others to stop and do nothing, what you request here is just academic, and useless for any planning purposes, and useless for the matter at hand, and the worst thing is that the testing was done and it is made constantly by the experts, and still they tell you that it would be silly to claim that it has stopped warming or expect a different result as even independent statisticians told us already what there a warming trend. As you are not demanding that the efforts to do something about it should stop your contributions here so far are indeed of the watching paint variety. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/244 "2012-02-09T19:07:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Still Going Down the Up Escalator](http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html) You are becoming extremely tiresome. You are no better than someone who links to nothing but articles in the Daily Mail. You don’t seem to understand that Skeptical Science is nothing more than a very biased source providing a very one sided view on the actual data. Do you ever read read anything written by actual scientists or do you just limit yourself to bloggers? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/245 "2012-02-09T19:09:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, as there is no request from you and others to stop and do nothing, what you request here is just academic I didn’t request anything here. What an odd thing for you to say. > [@](#): > > the point is that for practical purposes and the evidence at hand, it is unlikely that we will find paint that will take longer to dry from the rates of the speed of dryness that they have found before. Oh, I wouldn’t dream of quibbling with someone who figures the next six or seven years will likely be like the last thirteen or fourteen; rather the opposite. ---
**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 9, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/246 "2012-02-09T19:14:46Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You are becoming extremely tiresome. You are no better than someone who links to nothing but articles in the Daily Mail. Do tell, the Daily fail is the equivalent of Fox news regarding global warming denialism. [http://climatecrocks.com/2010/03/15/flogging-the-scientists/](http://climatecrocks.com/2010/03/15/flogging-the-scientists/) That you are trying to make me an equivalent of them is just a shooting the messenger fallacy. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You don’t seem to understand that Skeptical Science is nothing more than a very biased source providing a very one sided view on the actual data. Do you ever read read anything written by actual scientists or do you just limit yourself to bloggers? The fact that you are ignoring that on Skeptical Science and others I cite do link to the published science is telling us something else alright. I do not expect others to be lazy or assume that they will not look or check at the links. ---
**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 9, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/247 "2012-02-09T19:16:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I didn’t request anything here. What an odd thing for you to say. > > Oh, I wouldn’t dream of quibbling with someone who figures the next six or seven years will likely be like the last thirteen or fourteen; rather the opposite. Seen it already from you, useless retort as always. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/248 "2012-02-09T19:22:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, because he is not an expert on this and he needs to publish to show how wrong others are, an interview just only shows his opinion, nothing else. > Of course, as if we needed any more evidence, this shows that you are not capable of noticing who is misleading. As pointed out before independent statisticians reported already that it is dishonest to claim there is no warming trend going on. > > And as you only go then to just killing the messenger points, it remains that you are just resorting to illogical rhetoric to make your sorry points. And the rest is dismissed as it has been dealt before and it is just more evidence of the unreliability of your latest “champion” “He’s not an expert on this” is ad hominem at its finest. Is Cook? Dana1981? Painting ? Bailey? Wight? Way? Andy S? Jokimäki ? Tamblyn ? Riccardo? Blackburn? sweet ? King? (The skeptical science team) No comments on the points. Why do you participate in GW threads if you’re always “it’s been discussed”. Hiding and shouting “la la la” ain’t science ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/249 "2012-02-09T19:24:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I merely note, as always, that they take the time to claim a given span of years is insignificant to falsifying the stuff – and then to spell out that a longer span of years would be significant to falsifying the stuff – and then for some reason can’t spare even one moment longer to specify; four words would do it, but they can only be bothered to say that more is needed to prove 'em wrong without, y’know, saying how much more. Perhaps [this graph](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/Fig3.gif) will help clarify what is meant by short periods being insignificant. The 12 month mean suggests cooling, while the 60 month mean shows little warming in recent years (due to three La Ninas and just one El Nino from 2008-2011) and the 132 month mean shows continued warming at the same rate as recent decades - as you use longer periods, fluctuations are smoothed out. Notice that even the 132 month mean shows slight fluctuations, such as a few years back when 1998 fell out the 11-year average and the cooling in 2008 came in - but it continued to rise afterwards. But even the 12 month mean suggests continued warming to me, just by looking at the peaks and troughs; e.g. compare the dips in 2000 to 2008 and now. Also, see this link: [The Real Global Warming Signal](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/), which removes the influence of natural cycles like ENSO and solar; the result shows warming [so obvious](http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure08.jpg?w=500&h=499) that there isn’t any need at all to use longer time periods to average out noise (there are still some remaining year-year fluctuations, but mostly less than 0.05°C, within measurement error). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/250 "2012-02-09T19:38:04Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > Perhaps [this graph](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/Fig3.gif) will help clarify what is meant by short periods being insignificant. Er, no, that doesn’t clarify it at all. If you mention that a given period is too short to be significant, the obvious clarification would involve mentioning what period _ **would** _ be long enough to be significant. If you start off with _“ten or fifteen years aren’t enough,”_ you can follow up with a quick _“but twenty or thirty would be.”_ When you merely note that a different trend shows up over a longer period, you’re not actually telling me how long a period has to be for you to see it as significant. ---
**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 9, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/251 "2012-02-09T20:01:09Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “He’s not an expert on this” is ad hominem at its finest. Is Cook? Dana1981? Painting ? Bailey? Wight? Way? Andy S? Jokimäki ? Tamblyn ? Riccardo? Blackburn? sweet ? King? (The skeptical science team) Not an ad hominem, you are misrepresinting always what I do, I do always look at the link, and once an item that a denier has brought forward hundreds of times is noticed is that then one can safely ignore the rest, what you posted later showed that it was the correct approach, as Feynman could tell you: > [@](#): > > The problem is not just to say something might be wrong, but to replace it by something — and that is not so easy. As soon as any really definite idea is substituted it becomes almost immediately apparent that it does not work. > > The second difficulty is that there is an infinite number of possibilities of these simple types. It is something like this. You are sitting working very hard, you have worked for a long time trying to open a safe. Then some Joe comes along who knows nothing about what you are doing, except that you are trying to open the safe. He says ‘Why don’t you try the combination 10:20:30?’ Because you are busy, you have tried a lot of things, maybe you have already tried 10:20:30. Maybe you know already that the middle number is 32 not 20. Maybe you know as a matter of fact that it is a five digit combination… So please do not send me any letters trying to tell me how the thing is going to work. I read them — I always read them to make sure that I have not already thought of what is suggested — but it takes too long to answer them, because they are usually in the class ‘try 10:20:30’. (“Seeking New Laws”, page 161 in The Character of Physical Law.) > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No comments on the points. Why do you participate in GW threads if you’re always “it’s been discussed”. > > Hiding and shouting “la la la” ain’t science No, it is not my problem that in the end you usually throw your “champions” under the bus once they are found to be just reheating baloney that is not even theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/252 "2012-02-09T20:03:29Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You are becoming extremely tiresome. You are no better than someone who links to nothing but articles in the Daily Mail. You don’t seem to understand that Skeptical Science is nothing more than a very biased source providing a very one sided view on the actual data. Do you ever read read anything written by actual scientists or do you just limit yourself to bloggers? Actual scientists? You mean like the ones mentioned [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)? > [@](#): > > No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists… Most scientists, especially when it comes to politics, are also reluctant to admit to worst-case scenarios; it is well known that the IPCC report was [intentionally watered down](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325943.900-climate-report-was-watered-down.html) (and it considered very outdated now, such is the advancement in the science since 2007). > [@](#): > > David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April 2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than expected because of “positive feedbacks” in the climate system. Most of these references were absent from the final version. Some points: Arctic sea ice has declined [&NumericId=33108&MetadataView=Text&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb3"]faster than expected]([http://idn.ceos.org/climdiag/Metadata.do?Portal=climatediagnostics&KeywordPath=](http://idn.ceos.org/climdiag/Metadata.do?Portal=climatediagnostics&KeywordPath=)[Data\_Center%3A+Short\_Name%3D%27NSIDC\_DAAC%27), along with ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica [100 years faster than predicted](http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0324/p01s03-sten.html). Then the emergence of [new weather patterns](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1398), which is already having implications for current weather: > [@](#): > > It turns out that the new Arctic circulation patterns help to intensify the Siberian High, a large semi-permanent region of surface high pressure prevalent in winter over Siberia. According to Honda et al. (2009), this results in increased flow of cold air out of the Arctic in early winter over eastern Russia, Japan, Korea, and eastern China, causing colder temperatures. By late winter, the pattern shifts, resulting in colder than average temperatures from East Asia to Europe. That is very clearly evident on [this daily global temperature map](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html); note the extreme warmth in the Arctic, over 20°C above average\* (and much warmer than most of Asia in absolute temperature…), which also happens to be just where record low ice cover exists over the Barents and Kara seas. \*That isn’t just something that has existed recently either, I regularly look at that map and it has been like that for _months_ now, even before the cold in Europe, so it isn’t due to a simple weather pattern of cold air leaving the Arctic [and it happened last winter too](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/23/207385/canada-mildness-high-presure-record-ostro-global-warming/), and the winter before, etc, such that they now call it the “[warm Arctic cold continents pattern](http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html)”: > [@](#): > > Surface temperature anomalies for the period 17 December 2010 to 15 January 2011 show impressive warmth across the Canadian Arctic…. > > The largest anomalies here exceed 21°C (37.8°F) above average, which are very large values to be sustained for an entire month. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/253 "2012-02-09T20:07:07Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > When you merely note that a different trend shows up over a longer period, you’re not actually telling me how long a period has to be for you to see it as significant. No, a longer averaging period just brings the trend out by smoothing out noise, it doesn’t change the underlying trend at all. What about the second link I posted, which shows the same thing but with natural influences removed, leaving a nearly continuously increasing trend. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/254 "2012-02-09T21:23:06Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > No, a longer averaging period just brings the trend out by smoothing out noise, it doesn’t change the underlying trend at all. Again, this doesn’t actually tell me how long a period has to be before it becomes significant by “smoothing out noise”; it tells me _ **why** _ you think a longer period would be significant, but not what you mean by “longer”. Would, say, twenty years without warming be long enough, or would short-term “noise” still drown out significance? > [@](#): > > What about the second link I posted, which shows the same thing but with natural influences removed, leaving a nearly continuously increasing trend. What about it? If the topic is _“how long a period has to be before it becomes significant”_, then it’s exactly as irrelevant as the first link. If the topic is _“sure, the temperature hasn’t increased in the ‘short period’ of these last fourteen years, but here’s why it’s gotten cooler and may never get any warmer,”_ then I suppose it’d be relevant – but that’s not the point you seemed to be interested in clarifying. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/255 "2012-02-09T22:17:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not an ad hominem, you are misrepresinting always what I do, I do always look at the link, and once an item that a denier has brought forward hundreds of times is noticed is that then one can safely ignore the rest, what you posted later showed that it was the correct approach, as Feynman could tell you: > (“Seeking New Laws”, page 161 in The Character of Physical Law.) > No, it is not my problem that in the end you usually throw your “champions” under the bus once they are found to be just reheating baloney that is not even theirs. 1)Yes to the ad hominen. If you simply say “he’s a denier” it’s an ad hominen, and then you look for one thing to say you’ve solved the problem and no more reading is necessary. Maybe he split an infinitive, 2)No answer to the “there’s no cooling” even though your own link from your gods at sceptical science? I want to make sure you get it: The [link you provided](http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html)has a [chart that shows a cooling trend for the last 9 years](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif). Is the chart wrong? Are the NOAA data wrong? You are misrepresenting your very own link (on the specific topic of a cooling trend in the last 9-10 years). 1. Your “gods” at skeptical science, they aren’t experts, are they? Why do you ignore them? Are you afraid we’ll find out they aren’t the calibre experts you want them to be? Why don’t you defend them? Do you vouch for any of them? 4)Who have I thrown under the bus? (Plese, oh please, don’t say Monckton; that’d show you weren’t paying attention or that you have a crush on him). Also, you said “usually” so that’s mean more than 50% of the time. Can you show this to be true? I say it is false and you know it is false. Feynam, interesting, but characteristically neither here nor there in this discussion. [Here’s a very interesting link.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion). Let’s see how you nitpick my post and escape the real debate by finding a spelling mistake. (This is from your playbook) I won’t answer to skeptical science link until you prove they are experts and accept that similary quealified people are also experts. ---
**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 10, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/256 "2012-02-10T00:33:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 1)Yes to the ad hominen. If you simply say “he’s a denier” it’s an ad hominen, and then you look for one thing to say you’ve solved the problem and no more reading is necessary. Maybe he split an infinitive, Hey no problem, he is a denier. You are actually acting like if he is not, the reality is that even before the BEST review this evidence on the current warming is one of the most basic ones to say that there is a problem, now unless you want to admit that what you said early “that there is a problem” you need to toss this guy under the bus like you did all others that you attached your trust before. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 2)No answer to the “there’s no cooling” even though your own link from your gods at sceptical science? I want to make sure you get it: The [link you provided](http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html)has a [chart that shows a cooling trend for the last 9 years](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif). Is the chart wrong? Are the NOAA data wrong? > You are misrepresenting your very own link (on the specific topic of a cooling trend in the last 9-10 years). > **[Statisticians reject global cooling](https://grist.org/article/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/)** > > A terrific story by the AP’s Seth Borenstein, “Statisticians reject global cooling,” not only debunks that myth — it will make your head spin once again on error-riddled Superfreakonomics (coauthored by Levitt). Have you heard that the world is now... > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. > > > > ``` > > Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press. > > > > ``` > > The debunking will be no surprise to CP readers [see The BBC asks “What happened to global warming?” during the hottest decade in recorded history! and "NYT’s Revkin pushes global cooling myth (again!)], but the AP made three nice contributions. First, the AP talked to NOAA: > > > [@](#): > > > > The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend. > > > > ``` > > “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.” > > > > ``` > > Second, “In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented”: > [@](#): > > ``` > Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it’s important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years. > > “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford. > > Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy & Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it “a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers” ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen. > > ``` And so the rest or your fallacies can be ignored. It is really you who is resorting to childish behavior in an attempt to put down others, it won’t work. Incidentally yes, it is really silly to pretend you did not had to toss down the others you pushed before; as mentioned, claiming that you do think that there is a problem should lead you to continue forward with how to deal with the issue, \*\*not to go back to sources that discredit themselves when they still ignore what science says. \*\* > **[Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1](https://skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html)** > > One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate 'skeptics' is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal.  In fact, 'it hasn't warmed since 1998' is ninth on the list of most-used climate myths, and 'it's cooling' is fifth. > [@](#): > > The Signal Comes Through Loud and Clear > > On the other hand, other scientists who understand statistics are doing an excellent job explaining the difference between signal and noise. For example, when asked if BEST showed that global warming had stalled over the last decade in response to the interview with Dr. Curry, Dr. Richard Muller (the BEST team lead) said: > > > [@](#): > > > > “That’s incorrect…I mean, what they have done is an old trick. It’s how to lie with statistics, right? And scientists can’t do that because 10 years from now, they’ll look back on my publications and say, ‘Was he right?’ But a journalist can lie with statistics. They can choose a little piece of the data and prove what they want, carefully cutting out the end. If I wanted to do this, I could demonstrate, for example, with the same data set that from 1980 to 1995 that it’s equally flat. You can find little realms where it’s equally flat. What that tells me is that 15 years is not enough to be able to tell whether it’s warming or not. And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they’re playing that same game and the fact that we can find that back in 1980, the same effect, when we know it [was] warming simply shows that that method doesn’t work. \*\*But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics. \*\*Newspapers can do that because 10 years from now, nobody will remember that they showed that.” > > What the Science Says > > The peer-reviewed scientific literature confirms Muller’s comments. For example, Santer et al. (2011): > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > "Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature." > > > > ``` > > and Easterling and Wehner (2009): > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > "Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling....We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer‐term warming." > > > > ``` > > Not only are these short-term “pauses” just noise in the data, but observations show that they are entirely expected, and predicted by climate models (i.e. see Meehl el al. 2011). > **[Has Global Warming Stopped?](https://skepticalscience.com/has-global-warming-stopped.html)** > > Guest post by Alden Griffith, creator of Fool Me Once, a new blog featuring video presentations explaining climate science. This blog post is a written version of his first video addressing the argument 'Global warming has stopped'. Has global... > [@](#): > > So here are two requirements for those wishing to conclude that global warming has stopped based on the interview with Phil Jones: > > ``` > Accept the backwards logic that allows global warming to keep on stopping while temperatures keep on rising. > Ignore the real question of whether the last 15 years is consistent with a continued warming trend (which it is). > > ``` > > So no, global warming has not stopped. It takes some serious wishful thinking to say that it has. ---
**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 10, 2012, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/257 "2012-02-10T00:46:54Z")
Ran out of editing time, correcting this: “now unless you want to admit that what you said early “that there is a problem” you need to toss this guy under the bus like you did all others that you attached your trust before.” What I wanted to say is that you said early that you agree that “there is a problem” you need to toss this guy under the bus like you did with all others that you attached your trust before; because really, one can not get a better reason to do so than seeing someone that should know better not caring at all that he will be “discredited for lying with statistics.” ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/258 "2012-02-10T00:54:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Hey no problem, he is a denier. You are actually acting like if he is not, the reality is that even before the BEST review this evidence on the current warming is one of the most basic ones to say that there is a problem, now unless you want to admit that what you said early “that there is a problem” you need to toss this guy under the bus like you did all others that you attached your trust before. > > [Statisticians reject global cooling | Grist](http://grist.org/article/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/) > > And so the rest or your fallacies can be ignored. It is really you who is resorting to childish behavior in an attempt to put down others, it won’t work. > > Incidentally yes, it is really silly to pretend you did not had to toss down the others you pushed before; as mentioned, claiming that you do think that there is a problem should lead you to continue forward with how to deal with the issue, \*\*not to go back to sources that discredit themselves when they still ignore what science says. > \*\* > [Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1](http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html) > [Has Global Warming Stopped?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/has-global-warming-stopped.html) 1. Again ignoring the central issue. Commended for sticking to guns. 2. By changing to a different link I imagine that you have accepted that our very own link showed cooling in the last 9-10 years. So which one is right? the first or the second link? Interestingly both say basically the same thing, i.e. general warming trend in the last 4 decades and a slight cooling/levelling in the last decade. Do you understand the difference between “cooling trend” (as described in YOUR OWN link and “global warming stopped”? 3. No answer to 3, so it means your gods at SkS are not experts. 4. You didn’t answet to 4, that means you accept that you were not telling the truth by saying I usually throw my “champions” under the bus . How can I believe in your links if you don’t vouch for your gods? Are they experts? All, some, none of them? ---
**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 10, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/259 "2012-02-10T01:07:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 1. Again ignoring the central issue. Commended for sticking to guns. > > 2. By changing to a different link I imagine that you have accepted that our very own link showed cooling in the last 9-10 years. So which one is right? the first or the second link? Interestingly both say basically the same thing, i.e. general warming trend in the last 4 decades and a slight cooling/levelling in the last decade. > Do you understand the difference between “cooling trend” (as described in YOUR OWN link and “global warming stopped”? > [@](#): > > But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics. Newspapers can do that because 10 years from now, nobody will remember that they showed that.” Not my problem that you miss the point, but others already see what you are doing. only a shrinking number of irrelevant scientists are willing to be discredited making statements claiming that warming has stopped or that it is cooling, like the one that you are still defending here. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/260 "2012-02-10T01:38:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not my problem that you miss the point, but others already see what you are doing. only a shrinking number of irrelevant scientists are willing to be discredited making statements claiming that warming has stopped or that it is cooling, like the one that you are still defending here. Does that work in real life? I mean, backing away every time you are confronted with evidence? Because you fail to respond even to your own links, which show you are being untruthful. I’m defending our link. > [@](#): > > originally from **Skeptical Science** > \*\*Short-term cooling trends \*\*from Jan '70 to Nov '77, Nov '77 to Nov '86, Sep '87 to Nov '96, Mar '97 to Oct '02, and \*\*Oct '02 to Dec '11 \*\* That means that every time you say there is no cooling trend you are contradicting NOAA. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=14)