# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/261 "2012-02-10T01:49:16Z")
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that most of the warming is occurring in the oceans with just 5% of the excess energy being absorbed by Earth going into the atmosphere. So, what has heat content been doing over the [last 10-15 years](http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png)? Not cooling, and perhaps they should be asking what caused the big jump around 2001 (also evident in surface temperatures; try removing 1998 and see what you get, a big jump up in 2001). The answer - natural fluctuations that brought it above the underlying long-term trend (long-term = decades to centuries, think of climate normals, like NOAA uses the 20th Century, or 1981-2010 for current weather normals): > [@](#): > > [This year](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13) tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the **20th century average** of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 0.64°C (1.15°F) above average. Never mind the energy balance measurements that show that Earth is most definitely warming, regardless of what is claimed to be happening; otherwise, just where is the energy going? The following is from a **scientific publication** (as opposed to Skeptical Science - but then they reference these same publications, so I consider them to be as reliable as say Wikipedia, assuming they have good references - you can always look at references if you think the site is biased) on the [energy balance in recent years](http://www.350resources.org.uk/2012/02/03/nasa-publication-on-earths-energy-imbalance-james-hansen-et-al/): > [@](#): > > The observed planetary energy gain during the recent strong solar minimum reveals that the solar forcing of climate, although significant, is overwhelmed by a much larger net human-made climate forcing. The measured imbalance confirms that, if other climate forcings are fixed, atmospheric CO2 must be reduced to about 350 ppm or less to stop global warming. > > The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing. So, you have to come up with something to explain why Earth is still warming, and there isn’t any known natural explanation, nor do I expect that there is some unknown reason (there are a bunch of conspiracy theories though). ---
**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, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/262 "2012-02-10T01:58:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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. I have found that when others resort to childish gorchas like that that that in reality the opponent has no good replies left, the reality remains that the researcher you pointed at does say with no evidence whatsoever that “It hasn’t gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years”. So just like Feynman, that is good enough attention for the likes of him. He has discredited himself right out of the bat and the reality is that you are willing to continue to defend him. Fine with me, it is not my problem that you like to pall with discredited sources. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That means that every time you say there is no cooling trend you are contradicting NOAA. [http://mediamatters.org/research/201111110004](http://mediamatters.org/research/201111110004) > [@](#): > > Watts Falsely Suggests Decade Of U.S. Temperatures Undermines Manmade Warming > > Watts: “There Has Been A Cooling Trend” In The U.S. For “At Least The Last 10 Years.” Watts acknowledged that 10 years is not enough data to evaluate climate change but still cited temperatures from the past decade to suggest that a “cooling trend” in the lower 48 states raises questions about carbon dioxide’s impact on the climate. From the Daily Caller post titled, “Surprise: Over the last decade, the US cooled”: > > > [@](#): > > > > So according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, it seems clear that for at least the last 10 years, there has been a cooling trend in the annual mean temperature of the continental U.S. While this is not the standard 30-year period used by climatologists to determine climate for an area, it does beg the question: If carbon dioxide is in control of our climate, as many advocates claim, how could this happen? [Daily Caller, 11/08/11] > > NOAA: Brief Cooling Periods Are Not Inconsistent With Long Term Warming Trend. A paper by climate experts at NOAA and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory stated: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The reality of the climate system is that, due to natural climate variability, it is entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of "cooling" superimposed on the longer-term warming trend due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. Climate scientists pay little attention to these short-term fluctuations as the short term "cooling trends" mentioned above are statistically insignificant and fitting trends to such short periods is not very meaningful in the context of long-term climate change. [NOAA, 4/25/09] > > > > ``` > > U.S. Global Change Research Program: “The United States Has Been Warming Significantly Over The Past 50 Years.” A report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program stated that the U.S. has warmed more than 2°F in the past 50 years and that regional and short-term fluctuations continue to occur alongside a long-term global warming trend: > > > [@](#): > > > > Like the rest of the world, the United States has been warming significantly over the past 50 years in response to the build up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. When looking at national climate, however, it is important to recognize that climate responds to local, regional, and global factors. > > > > ``` > > [...] > > > > It is also important to recognize that at both the global and national scales, year-to-year fluctuations in natural weather and climate patterns can produce a period that does not follow the long-term trend. Thus, each year will not necessarily be warmer than every year before it, though the warming trend continues. U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2°F over the past 50 years and is projected to rise more in the future; how much more depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions. [U.S. Global Change Research Program, June 2009] > > > > ``` Nope not contradicting NOAA, but it is clear where that bad idea came from. ---
**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, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/263 "2012-02-10T02:11:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I have found that when others resort to childish gorchas like that that that in reality the opponent has no good replies left, the reality remains that the researcher you pointed at does say with no evidence whatsoever that “It hasn’t gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years”. So just like Feynman, that is good enough attention for the likes of him. > > He has discredited himself right out of the bat and the reality is that you are willing to continue to defend him. Fine with me, it is not my problem that you like to pall with discredited sources. > > [http://mediamatters.org/research/201111110004](http://mediamatters.org/research/201111110004) > > Nope not contradicting NOAA, but it is clear where that bad idea came from. “Gotchas”? You’re the emperor of Gotchaland. I mentioned your own 9 year-trend. When you deal with that, then I’ll answer about 14. The IDEA comes from your website, from the link you gave. Are you denying it? Still, for the n-th time. Short-term cooling trend, long-term warming trend: I agree, I have always agreed. Those are your gotchas. I’m not “generic denier”. Still not defending our gods, are you? Maybe they’re indefensible as 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, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/264 "2012-02-10T02:16:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > “Gotchas”? You’re the emperor of Gotchaland. > I mentioned your own 9 year-trend. When you deal with that, then I’ll answer about 14. Both of them dealt with already, not my problem that you think it was not. No realist or honest scientist denies that there is a warming trend, and both the “9 year” or “14 years” statements are not supported. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The IDEA comes from your website, from the link you gave. > Are you denying it? Once again, you are denying the context, NOAA is not saying that we are in a cooling trend. “Climate scientists pay little attention to these short-term fluctuations as the short term “cooling trends” mentioned above are **statistically insignificant** \*\*and fitting trends to such short periods is not very meaningful in the context of long-term climate change. \*\*[NOAA, 4/25/09]” Once again, the experts clarify that your “expert” does not know what he is talking about. > **[Archived blog posts](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/archived-posts/blog-posts-not-on-met-office-website)** > > Can't find the blog post you're looking for? Some of our older posts have been archived and were not moved across to the Met Office website when we moved the blog. > [@](#): > > Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997. > > For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data. > > “The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections. > > “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.” ---
**Author:** ![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, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/265 "2012-02-10T02:26:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Both of them dealt with already, not my problem that you think it was not. No realist or honest scientist denies that there is a warming trend, and both the “9 year” or “14 years” statements are not supported. > Once again, you are denying the context, NOAA is not saying that we are in a cooling trend. > > “Climate scientists pay little attention to these short-term fluctuations as the short term “cooling trends” mentioned above are **statistically insignificant** \*\*and fitting trends to such short periods is not very meaningful in the context of long-term climate change. \*\*[NOAA, 4/25/09]” Are you saying that this quote taken from a [Skeptical Science article you yourself quoted is wrong](http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html)? (my bolding) > [@](#): > > 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. May I repeat yet again, that I concur with: 1. Short-term cooling trend (9 years) 2. Long-term warming trend (40 ears) 3. At 10 year cooling trend does not mean the general warming trend has ended. ---
**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, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/266 "2012-02-10T02:31:24Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Are you saying that this quote taken from a [Skeptical Science article you yourself quoted is wrong](http://www.skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html)? > (my bolding) > > May I repeat yet again, that I concur with: > > 1. Short-term cooling trend (9 years) > 2. Long-term warming trend (40 ears) > 3. At 10 year cooling trend does not mean the general warming trend has ended. Have you ever heard the expression “missing the forest for the trees?” Indeed, it is not my problem that you are just attempting to justify a misrepresentation, all those short term coolings are already taken into account to declare that there is a warming trend still going on, the denier you brought fort is attempting to misrepresent the science, off to the dismissed pile he goes. ---
**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, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/267 "2012-02-10T02:51:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Have you ever heard the expression “missing the forest for the trees?” > > Indeed, it is not my problem that you are just attempting to justify a misrepresentation, all those short term coolings are already taken into account to declare that there is a warming trend still going on, the denier you brought fort is attempting to misrepresent the science, off to the dismissed pile he goes. So, grudgingly, you accept there is a cooling trend. Thanks. ---
**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, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/268 "2012-02-10T03:03:51Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, grudgingly, you accept there is a cooling trend. > Thanks. I accept that you only wasted your time, those items were already included before as I mentioned researchers like [Latif](http://mediamatters.org/research/201001120022) on previous discussions, he and others explained before why those coolings can be used to deceive others on what is going on, declaring that we are in a cooling trend is just to continue to support people that are pushing a deception on others. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/269 "2012-02-10T07:11:41Z")
I found an intelligent article in of all places Forbes. **Understanding the Global Warming Debate** [http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/](http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/) He actually goes through a lot of the basics on climate science and a lot the ways that AGW skeptics and believers talk past each other on this topic. BTW, is there a better word to use than believer? It is the antonym of skeptic, but I wonder if there is a less offensive term. I went to his web site and a lot of the information there is more controversial, so I can’t recommend it, but the information in the Forbes article tends to have to follow closer to what is widely believed by climate scientists. As I said before, you really need to understand some math to really understand global warming, so I suggest you start here: [http://www.randombio.com/co2.html](http://www.randombio.com/co2.html) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/270 "2012-02-10T11:38:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [Great interview by Germany’s Der Spiegel](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html) with Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, [del]a well-known denier who’s always been against preserving the environment and a hater of science[/del], sorry a leading researcher in alternative fuels and long time environmentalist who’s saying that the IPCC is wrong on many counts. > > I’m sure he rapes blinds orphans for fun, too, but don’t worry, [he’s just a guy with a blog](http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/66234/rwe/curriculum-vitae-prof-dr-fritz-vahrenholt/); maybe even was in the same continent as Lord Monckton at some point. > > Also, [Der Spiegel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel)is just a a flier photocoped at some small German town. Well this will surely be of interest to those who believe that scientific truth is determined by majority vote. What’s more interesting to me is what’s going on with Hansen’s predictions from 1988. Global surface temperatures are even lower than what he predicted would happen if emissions were drastically curtailed. [![](https://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg) ](https://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg) What’s also interesting is that Hansen’s computer simulation matched history very well, far better than it matched the future. Just look at the graph from 1958 to 1988. This is decent evidence that climate “scientists” tune their simulations to match history. ---
**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, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/271 "2012-02-10T14:07:12Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I found an intelligent article in of all places Forbes. > > **Understanding the Global Warming Debate** > > [http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/](http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/) > > He actually goes through a lot of the basics on climate science and a lot the ways that AGW skeptics and believers talk past each other on this topic. BTW, is there a better word to use than believer? It is the antonym of skeptic, but I wonder if there is a less offensive term. The reality is that there are scientific skeptics and deniers on one side and scientific proponents, plain proponents and yes, alarmists. The trick the Forbes writer is using is to avoid dealing on what the scientists that are proponents of this are saying and making just the “believer” in the media or the lazy oafs out there. (That is a nice trick when also most of the media is a denier force or it just “forgets” about the issue as the OP noticed) BTW history shows that it is really silly to use “believer”. History shows that it was the evidence that made scientists and specially the experts on the field to sound a warning. Curious fate that had to use evidence, the Forbes writer then relies on faith that what we see on one side are not deniers but skeptics. Followed by the straw man that most proponents are peddling catastrophe, more than once I pointed out that this will not be the end of the world, it is just that history does show that it takes only a little disruption to get humans to not do the right thing and cause unrest all over. And that is just by taking into consideration the recent droughts that are not caused by global warming, but made worse by it, and it would be indeed a matter of faith to think that this will get better when more warming is coming as even scientific skeptics can tell you. (And we have not touched ocean acidification issue yet) Another trick the Forbes writer is using is to once again attempt to make this an ideological issue by pressing the side that this situation is happening among the proponents because it is the left pressing for the idea. So what do a real climate scientist, Republican, has to say like many others do? [http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/faq?page=3](http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/faq?page=3) > [@](#): > > The fact that carbon dioxide has a warming influence on the planet is based on knowledge of physics discovered more than a century ago, and greatly refined immediately after World War II by US Air Force research for communications, operations and heat-seeking missiles. CO2 and other greenhouse gases interfere with the energy from the hot exhaust of an enemy bomber reaching the sensor of a heat-seeking missile, just as these gases interfere with energy from the Earth escaping to space to cool the planet. > > The known physics of the atmosphere, combined with the human-caused rise of CO2, thus should be warming the Earth, and warming is observed. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3B and discussed more in the next question, the observed warming in the latter part of the 20th century and now in the 21st century has the “fingerprint” of carbon dioxide, although climate changes during the early part of the 20th century and before were mostly natural. > [@](#): > > Q so where that does leave us? > > ANSWER: The best available scientific evidence shows that human burning of fossil fuels and other activities are changing the composition of the air, causing warming, sea-level rise, and other climatic changes, and that human decisions will determine whether or not future changes will be much larger than those that have already occurred. Here, I haven’t discussed the additional issues of economics, national security, jobs, and others that are covered in the book and the TV show. Still, the best assessments of the immense amount of careful science show that we are not doomed to immediate catastrophe, but that we will be better off if we address the twin problems of climate change and the need for non-CO2-emitting sources of energy, and that the sooner we get going on that, the better. ---
**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, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/272 "2012-02-10T14:18:48Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well this will surely be of interest to those who believe that scientific truth is determined by majority vote. What’s more interesting to me is what’s going on with Hansen’s predictions from 1988. Global surface temperatures are even lower than what he predicted would happen if emissions were drastically curtailed. > > [http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg](http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg) > > What’s also interesting is that Hansen’s computer simulation matched history very well, far better than it matched the future. Just look at the graph from 1958 to 1988. This is decent evidence that climate “scientists” tune their simulations to match history. Most scientists do report (and from the same source this comes from) that if Hansen had used the current most agree sensibilities he would had been more on the money, once again this demonstrate that models are not really what researchers just use, real data and evidence changes and calling it “history” is misleading. > **[RealClimate: 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/)** > > RealClimate: And so it goes - another year, another annual data point. As has become a habit (2009, 2010), here is a brief overview and update of some of the most relevant model/data comparisons. We include the standard comparisons of surface... > [@](#): > > As we stated before, the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is running warm compared to the real world (exactly how much warmer is unclear). As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change). > [@](#): > > Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/273 "2012-02-10T17:06:26Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > Actual scientists? You mean like the ones mentioned [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)? I mean peer reviewed papers written by actual climate scientists, like James Hansen or Gavin Schmidt. It isn’t that hard to find copies of the papers that aren’t behind a paywall with Google Scholar. Based on your response, I would assume the answer is no. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/274 "2012-02-10T17:33:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So what do a real climate scientist, Republican, has to say like many others do? > > [http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/faq?page=3](http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/faq?page=3) I curious why you think Geoff Haines-Stiles is a Republican or a Scientist? [http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/full\_cast\_and\_crew](http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/full_cast_and_crew) Here is his entry on the IMDB. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0354318/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0354318/) ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/275 "2012-02-10T18:06:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I accept that you only wasted your time, those items were already included before as I mentioned researchers like [Latif](http://mediamatters.org/research/201001120022) on previous discussions, he and others explained before why those coolings can be used to deceive others on what is going on, declaring that we are in a cooling trend is just to continue to support people that are pushing a deception on others. It’s quaint to see how you went from “there is no cooling” to “there is cooling but it doesn’t matter on the overall trend” and claim any victory, especially since that was my position fromthe get-go. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I found an intelligent article in of all places Forbes. > > **Understanding the Global Warming Debate** > > [http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/](http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/) > > He actually goes through a lot of the basics on climate science and a lot the ways that AGW skeptics and believers talk past each other on this topic. BTW, is there a better word to use than believer? It is the antonym of skeptic, but I wonder if there is a less offensive term. > > I went to his web site and a lot of the information there is more controversial, so I can’t recommend it, but the information in the Forbes article tends to have to follow closer to what is widely believed by climate scientists. > > As I said before, you really need to understand some math to really understand global warming, so I suggest you start here: > > [http://www.randombio.com/co2.html](http://www.randombio.com/co2.html) Warren is a very intelligent guy who knows computer models. He is as close to my position as I have found. [His climate blog is very informative.](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reality is that there are scientific skeptics and deniers on one side and scientific proponents, plain proponents and yes, alarmists. > > The trick the Forbes writer is using is to avoid dealing on what the scientists that are proponents of this are saying and making just the “believer” in the media or the lazy oafs out there. (That is a nice trick when also most of the media is a denier force or it just “forgets” about the issue as the OP noticed) > > BTW history shows that it is really silly to use “believer”. History shows that it was the evidence that made scientists and specially the experts on the field to sound a warning. Curious fate that had to use evidence, the Forbes writer then relies on faith that what we see on one side are not deniers but skeptics. Followed by the straw man that most proponents are peddling catastrophe, more than once I pointed out that this will not be the end of the world, it is just that history does show that it takes only a little disruption to get humans to not do the right thing and cause unrest all over. And that is just by taking into consideration the recent droughts that are not caused by global warming, but made worse by it, and it would be indeed a matter of faith to think that this will get better when more warming is coming as even scientific skeptics can tell you. (And we have not touched ocean acidification issue yet) > > Another trick the Forbes writer is using is to once again attempt to make this an ideological issue by pressing the side that this situation is happening among the proponents because it is the left pressing for the idea. > > So what do a real climate scientist, Republican, has to say like many others do? > > [http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/faq?page=3](http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/faq?page=3) Always avoiding specific points, always saying “tricks”, never engaging the numbers. Why bother with your link if you, later, back off from them or then bring other links to cover the ones you previously posted.? You never engage the numbers, I won’t engage yours. Geoff Haines-Stiles: Climate scientist? Published peer-reviewed scientist? Really? Is he one your gods? Will you ditch him as those from SkS you have not defended? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/276 "2012-02-10T18:46:10Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > BTW, is there a better word to use than believer? It is the antonym of skeptic, but I wonder if there is a less offensive term. Proponent? Advocate? ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/277 "2012-02-10T19:21:00Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I mean peer reviewed papers written by actual climate scientists, like James Hansen or Gavin Schmidt. It isn’t that hard to find copies of the papers that aren’t behind a paywall with Google Scholar. > > Based on your response, I would assume the answer is no. And most of the sites like Skeptical Science reference those papers when writing their articles; if you doubt their accuracy, just look at the references (as one would do with any non-primary source). Here is an example: > [@](#): > > [Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm) > > _Church et al 2011_ extends the analysis of _Murphy 2009_ which calculated the Earth’s total heat content through to 2003. This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008. There are two links to scientific papers (italics) just in that one paragraph, plus several others in the rest of the article, including one from NOAA, which I consider to be as reliable as a scientific publication. ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/278 "2012-02-10T21:24:44Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I curious why you think Geoff Haines-Stiles is a Republican or a Scientist? > > [http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/full\_cast\_and\_crew](http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/full_cast_and_crew) > > Here is his entry on the IMDB. > > [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0354318/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0354318/) Do you really check who was the host and adviser to the series? > [@](#): > > Host Richard Alley – a geologist, contributor to the United Nations panel on climate change and former oil company employee Same goes for the Aji the gallina, ignorance is powerful over here. ---
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/279 "2012-02-10T21:31:52Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Warren is a very intelligent guy who knows computer models. He is as close to my position as I have found. [His climate blog is very informative.](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/) We found him before, not well regarded as a result of a closer inspection. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10863371&postcount=201](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10863371&postcount=201) ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/280 "2012-02-10T21:48:14Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > And most of the sites like Skeptical Science reference those papers when writing their articles; if you doubt their accuracy, just look at the references (as one would do with any non-primary source). Here is an example: > > There are two links to scientific papers (italics) just in that one paragraph, plus several others in the rest of the article, including one from NOAA, which I consider to be as reliable as a scientific publication. My point is that GIGObuster never reads the scientific papers or even the articles he cites from Skeptical Science. However the link you give supports my point that you really have to read the articles to see what is really happening and the real uncertainties in the science. If you actually read the paper they cite: **Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008** [http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1118/2011GL048794/2011GL048794.pdf](http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1118/2011GL048794/2011GL048794.pdf) The abstract seems to support the point they are making, but when you dig into it it you discover that they spend most of section 5 explaining the lack of warming since the late nineties and during this century. Of course this doesn’t bother me since I’m a lukewarmer. It really only bugs the warmists Right now, I’m trying to figure out Hansen’s new paper: **Earth’s energy imbalance and implication** [http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf](http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf) I started having a problem with it before I got through the abstract. > [@](#): > > The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during the 6-yr period 2005–2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Our total energy budget is about 217 watts per square meter and you can measure imbalance to 3/10 tenths of one percent and you are sure AGW is causing it and it is sufficient basis to justify drastic economic action? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=15)