# 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:** 4
**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 31, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/61 "2012-01-31T01:47:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yes, it’s there, and it can be attributed largely or entirely to [soot](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2010/01/soot-and-glaciers.html). > > And of course even with that, glaciers today [still haven’t retreated](http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_42353.htm)as far as they had [1, 000 years ago](http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm), a time when global temperature was supposedly entirely natural. As I have seen before, it was, but the mechanism for the current warming is not the same and still not global in reach. The Medieval warming period was more localized. > [@Blake](#): > > Glaciers come and glaciers go. We know almost nothing about the causes, but if the current retreat is attributable to global temperatures, then we are forced to concede that the temperature were significantly warmer than today. And if we wish to assert that temperatures today are warmer than they have been for the past 1, 00 years , then we have to concede that the current retreat of glaciers isn’t attributable to temperature. It does not follow. > **[Are glaciers growing or retreating?](https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm)** > > \While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.\ > [@](#): > > Although Glaciologists measure year-to-year changes in glacier activity, it is the long term changes which provide the basis for statements such as “Global Glacier Recession Continues”. Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends. Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally? > > The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide (Figure 2). > **[Are glaciers growing or retreating?](https://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm)** > > \While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s.\ > [@](#): > > Glaciers respond directly and quickly to atmospheric conditions. As temperatures warm, summer melting increases. However, accumulation of ice in the winter also increases due to more snowfall. Air temperature tends to play the dominant role - \*\*there’s a strong statistical correlation between air temperature and glacier fluctuations over large distances (Greene 2005). Generally, when air temperatures warm, glaciers recede. \*\* > > Consequently, because they’re so sensitive to changes in temperature, glaciers provide clues about the effects of global warming. Glacier mass balance is measured through a variety of techniques. Direct glaciological methods include ablation stakes, snow pits and snow probing. This data is then combined with independent geodetic surveys, collected and published by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS). > > Over the period 1946–2005, the WGMS have monitored 228 glaciers. In the early years, just several glaciers were monitored. Over time, observations from more glaciers across the globe were added to the database, giving us a broader picture of global glacier mass balance. The highest quality glacier observations are ongoing, continuous and long term. There are 30 glaciers in 9 different mountain ranges that have been continuously measured since 1976 (11 of them reaching back to 1960 and earlier). These are considered ‘reference glaciers’. Figure 1 shows the total number of glaciers monitored since 1946. The black and dark grey bar indicate the number of reference glaciers. > > Figure 1: Observed glaciers from 1946 to 2006 (Zemp 2009). > > What do these glacier observations reveal? The following table shows the mass balance of individual glaciers over 2002 and 2003. Negative values indicate shrinkage. We see that there are isolated glaciers that are growing. However, focusing solely on these few glaciers to indicate global glacier growth paints a very misleading picture. The vast majority of glaciers are receding. And importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg - 77% in 2002, 94% in 200 ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/62 "2012-01-31T01:52:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > One of the basic principles of science is the simplicity hypothesis. That is, among competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I just wish the alarmist would heed it. The global temperature trend has been following a nearly perfect logarithmic trajectory for the past 400 years, yet Alarmists promulgate a preposterously convulted hypothesis to explain why _exactly the same trend continued for the past 50 years_. Of course the simplest explanation for why a 400-year old trend continued for a further 50 years is because nothing changed. Unfortunately Alarmists clearly do not believe in the simplicity hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/63 "2012-01-31T01:59:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As I have seen before, it was, but the mechanism for the current warming is not the same and still not global in reach. The Medieval warming period was more localized. Localised int he sense that we know it affected Europe, Western Asia, North America, and Australasia. We are uncertain of its extent elsewhere. That’s not what most people would call “localised”. Unfortunately for alarmists, they initially denied that the MWP even existed, base don the now-infamous Mann-Whitney hockey-stick fiasco. Now that they have been forced to concede that it did exist, they struggle to claim that it was “localised”. All the while they point at localised ice retreat and claim that as evidence of the Alarmist hypothesis, despite the fact that even greater retreats were seen across 4 continents 1, 000 years ago. > [@](#): > > It does not follow. [It most definitely does follow.](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/retreating-glac-2.html) > [@](#): > > Data for the last decade is a little squirrelly because the data sets he uses are slow to update, but the overall picture is pretty clear — a pretty steady 150+ year history of steady retreat, with the only change is slope being a flattening rather than an acceleration of the curve. ---
**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 31, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/64 "2012-01-31T01:59:20Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I agree with that wholeheartedly. I just wish the alarmist would heed it. The global temperature trend has been following a nearly perfect logarithmic trajectory for the past 400 years, yet Alarmists promulgate a preposterously convulted hypothesis to explain why _exactly the same trend continued for the past 50 years_. Of course the simplest explanation for why a 400-year old trend continued for a further 50 years is because nothing changed. > > Unfortunately Alarmists clearly do not believe in the simplicity hypothesis. Nope, if only nature was driving the temperature we should see a cooling trend ever since the 70’s. And there is no good evidence for the 400 year old trend you are talking here. > **[Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology)** > > NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time... But going back to the OP, the simplest thing to do with the Daily Fail is to use it for the bird cage. > **[The Daily Mail Prints Climate Nonsense](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-daily-mail-prints-climate-nonsense/)** > > One of my students asked me about a new article just printed in The Daily Mail, a right-wing newspaper in the U.K.  The article’s title is, “Forget global warming – it’s Cyc… > [@](#): > > 1. Next, they launch off into their nonsense about how the flat temperature trend is all because of a decrease in solar activity, and we’re heading into a new Little Ice Age. The press release the Met Office put out just prior to the one I already mentioned was entitled, “Decline in Solar Output Unlikely To Offset Global Warming“, but the Daily Mail reporter says that these findings are “fiercely disputed by other solar experts,” and quotes Henrik Svensmark. I could name a couple other solar guys who agree with Svensmark, but that’s all. He’s definitely on the fringes. Svensmark has an interesting theory about why changes in Solar output might exert a much greater influence on climate than the models give it credit for, but the problem is that the statistics don’t pan out. > > 2. But wait! Just in case people didn’t buy the Solar connection, let’s completely switch gears and blame the whole thing on ocean circulation! The ridiculous thing is that the standard climate models DO incorporate ocean circulation AND variations in Solar output, and these things DO affect the temperature projections so that any given model will predict periods of several years where there might even be overall cooling. The models just differ about when these “pauses” in global warming will happen, because the system is chaotic and the timing of these things are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions and the model details. > > 3. If the scientific consensus doesn’t agree with what you want to hear, the Daily Mail reporter knows that you can always get some D-list fringe scientists to make it all better. E.g., take a look at Nicola Scafetta, who thinks that Jupiter and Saturn are affecting the climate to create a 60-year cycle, which Judy Curry also apparently buys into. Yep. But don’t ask Scafetta or Curry what Jupiter or Saturn are supposed to be doing that affects the climate, because they can’t give any physical mechanism. Maybe that’s why the Daily Mail calls Curry “one of America’s most eminent climate experts.” Whatever. Also, take a look at Benny Peiser, who is a social anthropologist too ignorant to properly read the scientific literature on climate change. > > Now, take a step back and look at what has been done to the public. Most people have no idea about statistical cherry-picking, and even those who do wouldn’t necessarily suspect anything. Most people would have no idea that the Daily Mail is quoting a bunch of fringe scientists, and they would have no idea why the views of these scientists are dismissed by the others. It turns out that Svensmark WAS taken seriously, but his hypothesis hasn’t panned out. It turns out that Scafetta’s ideas are little better than curve-fitted astrology, at this point. It turns out that climate models DO account for ocean circulation, but there is no convincing evidence that this does much outside timescales of a few years. > > Like I said, this is why I’ve gone militant on these guys. I think they are patently dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/65 "2012-01-31T02:00:00Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I am a lukewarmer myself, which means that I agree with most of the climate science, but I disagree with the amount of warming that is going to occur. I think most climate models simply assume too much feedback from the increase in CO2. Standard climate science assumes a fairly small warming directly from the CO2 but there is a feedback loop because of the increase in water vapor caused by increase in CO2. The amount of warming that I estimate will occur by 2100 will be between 1 and 2 degrees centigrade. I don’t think there is a consensus among climate scientists about how much feedback there is… One should note that current climate models may actually underestimate temperature rise since [past climate records indicate much larger changes under similar conditions](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/). For example, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum involved a similar amount of carbon as current emissions, if most fossil fuels are burned, and temperature rose by about 6C. Plus, there is [good evidence that feedbacks like clouds are positive](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/24/204414/science-deniers-lindzen-clouds-amplifying-positive-feedback-not-negative/). Plus, none of them, AFAIK, include methane releases from permafrost, [which could be quite significant](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/17/207552/nsidc-thawing-permafrost-will-turn-from-carbon-sink-to-source-in-mid-2020s-releasing-100-billion-tons-of-carbon-by-2100/) since methane has about 30 times the GWP over a century (the quoted amount would be equivalent to 3 trillion tons of CO2, of which humans currently emit 35 billion tons a year). And while we may not know all the fine details involving climate changes millions of years ago, there are really just a handful of major factors; e.g. the gradual increase in solar output over billions of years (the Sun used to be 40% dimmer than today - yet the Earth was even warmer at times; only greenhouse gasses can fully explain that). Note also that half or more of the warming so far has been masked by aerosols (especially with the large increases in the past decade). ---
**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 31, 2012, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/66 "2012-01-31T02:06:21Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > [It most definitely does follow.](http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/retreating-glac-2.html) Nope, if you had seen the first video I linked, scientists also had some evidence then that a good deal of it was caused by the increasing release of CO2 into the atmosphere around the 50’s. Incidentally you are now resorting to denialist sites there, betraying where you are coming from. That is not looking at science for guidance on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/67 "2012-01-31T02:09:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, if only nature was driving the temperature we should see a cooling trend ever since the 70’s. The IPCC says we have no damn idea what the natural temperature trend would be. So you are simply making this up. > [@](#): > > And there is no good evidence for the 400 year old trend you are talking here. Really? The data is freely avaailble. It can be viewed in graphical form at the bottom of t[his page](http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html). Unlike alarmist, real scientists don’t rely on science-by-consensus. I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether the temperature trend for the past 400 years has followed a trajectroy that produces a near-perfect exponential curve. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/68 "2012-01-31T02:16:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, if you had seen the first video I linked, scientists also had some evidence then that a good deal of it was caused by the increasing release of CO2 into the atmosphere around the 50’s. And if you had read the site I linked to, you would see that it it is universally accepted amongst scientists that glaciers have still not retreated as far as they had 1, 00 years ago, at a time when there was minimal human release of CO2 into the atmosphere. > [@](#): > > Incidentally you are now resorting to denialist sites there, betraying where you are coming from. That is not looking at science for guidance on this issue. And you are quoting form Alarmist websites. Of course we have known for along time that you have no interest of, or even knowledge of, the science, you simply spam every thread with reams of non-sequitur quotes from Denialist sites It seems you don;t like it when people do it back to you. You are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks. 😃 Any time you feel able to discuss the actual science, without resort to ALarmist websites, I will happily engage you. I know form past performance that you can not compete without denialist Spam. But so long as you continue the tactic of spamming Alarmist websites, then I will respond to you in kind. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/69 "2012-01-31T02:23:52Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Unfortunately for alarmists, they initially denied that the MWP even existed, base don the now-infamous Mann-Whitney hockey-stick fiasco… It should be noted that since then [numerous other studies (including different data)](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/09/21/206729/hockey-stick-global-warming/) have arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Mann. And some do show a MWP but none show that it was as warm as today. Perhaps one of the more significant ones relates to the Arctic, where it has also been [warming much faster](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/23/409099/arctic-temperatures-continue-rapid-rise-2011-breaks-record/): > [@](#): > > [Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling](http://www2.ucar.edu/news/846/arctic-warming-overtakes-2000-years-natural-cooling) > > They found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth’s orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. ---
**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 31, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/70 "2012-01-31T02:25:55Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The IPCC says we have no damn idea what the natural temperature trend would be. > So you are simply making this up. Nope, recently the denial press had the natural cycles of Mongolia as the new star of their show, they reported that it predicted that a cooling was coming, what they did not mention is that that would be case is if there was no Human made CO2 in the atmosphere. And then there the more robust models that are not predicting anything but using already recorded data and physics. > **[The Monckton Files: Solar Variation](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/the-monckton-files-solar-variation/)** > > I have examined a single paragraph in Lord Monckton’s recent testimony to a committee of the U.S. Congress, in which Monckton cited some statistics about natural variations in incoming solar … > [@](#): > > Figure 3. Taken from Fig. 1 of FAQ 9.2 in IPCC AR4 (Working Group 1). The black line shows the actual evolution of the global mean temperature over the 20th century. The blue band shows the range of predictions for the temperature evolution given by the IPCC’s climate models if you only drive the system with natural factors like changes in solar output, volcanic activity, and so on. The pink band shows what the models predict if you add in human factors like increased greenhouse gas concentrations from fossil fuel burning. What that image shows is roughly were we would be if the excess CO2 was not there, about .6 degrees or more cooler since the 50’s than what we have now. > [@Blake](#): > > Really? > The data is freely avaailble. It can be viewed in graphical form at the bottom of t[his page](http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html). > > Unlike alarmist, real scientists don’t rely on science-by-consensus. > > I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether the temperature trend for the past 400 years has followed a trajectroy that produces a near-perfect exponential curve. What I see there is that the temperature record for Antarctica clearly has been more or less stable for the last 5000 years or so, remember, it is the unprecedented warming that is the issue, not the ones explained by natural phenomena. ---
**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 31, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/71 "2012-01-31T02:34:37Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > And if you had read the site I linked to, you would see that it it is universally accepted amongst scientists that glaciers have still not retreated as far as they had 1, 00 years ago, at a time when there was minimal human release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Once again ignoring the natural processes of then, the issue remains that unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming. > [@Blake](#): > > And you are quoting form Alarmist websites. Of course we have known for along time that you have no interest of, or even knowledge of, the science, you simply spam every thread with reams of non-sequitur quotes from Denialist sites > > It seems you don;t like it when people do it back to you. You are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks. 😃 Nah, that was just a warning coming from posterity, if you are so certain you should be making papers to counteract what NASA NOAA and others are even teaching now as the most likely facts behind the current warming. > [@Blake](#): > > Any time you feel able to discuss the actual science, without resort to ALarmist websites, I will happily engage you. I know form past performance that you can not compete without denialist Spam. > > But so long as you continue the tactic of spamming Alarmist websites, then I will respond to you in kind. I will let others figure out if you are justified on calling a Republican scientist from BYU an alarmist. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/72 "2012-01-31T02:36:11Z")
You guys do know that **Blake** is a real scientist right? Now, that being said- humans are _very likely_ spewing CO2 into the air faster than the biosphere can adapt to it. This is _very likely_ causing some climate changes. But “very likely” or “the evidence points to” or “it appears” are not the same as “it is proven that”. Currently Anthropogenic Global Warming is a very good scientific hypothesis, that is supported by quite a bit of evidence. But that’s a good distance from being a proven Scientific Theory. What is critical is that we don’t use craptastic junk science like that fishbowl “experiment” to “prove” Anthropogenic Global Warming. That just makes things worse. It give solid ammo to the deniers. Now, the alarmists apparently think that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a \*\*very big scary deal \*\*, so thus it’s Ok to use Junk science and bad evidence to get the ignorant sheeples to believe. However, inevitably, this gets found out and the deniers (who are mostly greedy bastards who know full well it’s bad to burn dirty coal in unregulated generators), and they use it to confuse the masses. But let us skip Anthropogenic Global Warming for now. Doesn’t matter. Burning dirty fossil fuels kills people and harms the environment. **We know that.** Now, we do have scientists like Una who know how to reduce this, but of course the greedy bastards fight that, too. It gets crazy when you have orgs like the Sierra club fighting against Anthropogenic Global Warming, insisting we reduce our greenhouse gases & our reliance on fossil fuels. But then they want to tear down dams, they fight nuclear tooth & nail, and they just spent millions to stop a _solar_ power plant. :eek::dubious:😕 Which is it? Alternative Power or Fossil Fuels? Cause it sure as fuck ain’t us all turning down the thermostat, buying hybrids and banning incadesant light bulbs. Not that those things can’t help a little, but they are NOT the solution. We \*do \*need alternative energy. We need to stop wasting. We need to get China to stop burning dirty coal in unregulated power plants. _Even if_ Anthropogenic Global Warming turns out to be a very small problem. ---
**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 31, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/73 "2012-01-31T02:56:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You guys do know that **Blake** is a real scientist right? Better like Bickmore? Most likely not, when looking at his sources, I would think I would consult him on his area of expertise, but not on this one. As one of the most important points I have made before, one should get that no one is an expert of everything, so therefore one should rely on the proper experts when deciding what to do. [Video of the “scientists” and “experts” climate change deniers rely on.] [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/cMtiyHzUiP4/hqdefault.jpg "9 Climate Change Meet the Scientists from potholer54") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMtiyHzUiP4) > [@DrDeth](#): > > Now, that being said- humans are _very likely_ spewing CO2 into the air faster than the biosphere can adapt to it. This is _very likely_ causing some climate changes. > > But “very likely” or “the evidence points to” or “it appears” are not the same as “it is proven that”. Currently Anthropogenic Global Warming is a very good scientific hypothesis, that is supported by quite a bit of evidence. But that’s a good distance from being a proven Scientific Theory. After more than 100 years of tests and confirmations I would say it is. > [@DrDeth](#): > > What is critical is that we don’t use craptastic junk science like that fishbowl “experiment” to “prove” Anthropogenic Global Warming. That just makes things worse. It give solid ammo to the deniers. > > Now, the alarmists apparently think that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a \*\*very big scary deal \*\*, so thus it’s Ok to use Junk science and bad evidence to get the ignorant sheeples to believe. However, inevitably, this gets found out and the deniers (who are mostly greedy bastards who know full well it’s bad to burn dirty coal in unregulated generators), and they use it to confuse the masses. > > But let us skip Anthropogenic Global Warming for now. Doesn’t matter. Burning dirty fossil fuels kills people and harms the environment. **We know that.** Now, we do have scientists like Una who know how to reduce this, but of course the greedy bastards fight that, too. > > It gets crazy when you have orgs like the Sierra club fighting against Anthropogenic Global Warming, insisting we reduce our greenhouse gases & our reliance on fossil fuels. But then they want to tear down dams, they fight nuclear tooth & nail, and they just spent millions to stop a _solar_ power plant. :eek::dubious:😕 > > Which is it? Alternative Power or Fossil Fuels? Cause it sure as fuck ain’t us all turning down the thermostat, buying hybrids and banning incadesant light bulbs. Not that those things can’t help a little, but they are NOT the solution. Good thing I look at science and I support dams, nuclear power and solar and wind. > [@DrDeth](#): > > We \*do \*need alternative energy. We need to stop wasting. We need to get China to stop burning dirty coal in unregulated power plants. _Even if_ Anthropogenic Global Warming turns out to be a very small problem. And I can agree with that, but as even MIT would tell you, it is a problem that we can keep small or make bigger depending on what we do. > **[Climate change odds much worse than thought](https://news.mit.edu/2009/roulette-0519)** > > New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/74 "2012-01-31T03:20:14Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > One should note that current climate models may actually underestimate temperature rise since [past climate records indicate much larger changes under similar conditions](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/). For example, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum involved a similar amount of carbon as current emissions, if most fossil fuels are burned, and temperature rose by about 6C. Plus, there is [good evidence that feedbacks like clouds are positive](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/24/204414/science-deniers-lindzen-clouds-amplifying-positive-feedback-not-negative/). Plus, none of them, AFAIK, include methane releases from permafrost, [which could be quite significant](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/17/207552/nsidc-thawing-permafrost-will-turn-from-carbon-sink-to-source-in-mid-2020s-releasing-100-billion-tons-of-carbon-by-2100/) since methane has about 30 times the GWP over a century (the quoted amount would be equivalent to 3 trillion tons of CO2, of which humans currently emit 35 billion tons a year). And while we may not know all the fine details involving climate changes millions of years ago, there are really just a handful of major factors; e.g. the gradual increase in solar output over billions of years (the Sun used to be 40% dimmer than today - yet the Earth was even warmer at times; only greenhouse gasses can fully explain that). Note also that half or more of the warming so far has been masked by aerosols (especially with the large increases in the past decade). Do you actually think we can accurately measure events that happened 55 million years ago? Also do you think that events that happened over a period of 20,000 years is valid method of deducing what the temperature rise will over the next 100 years? We are talking about things that we can’t accurately measure now, much less 55 million years ago. You should also be aware that Joe Romm is an extremely partisan source who isn’t constrained by actual facts in his attacks. During the congressional debates on the climate bill, he made vicious attacks on James Hansen, because Hansen thought that a carbon tax would be more effective than carbon credits. You really need to read some other sources about the PETM. We have a lot of speculation, but the hard data is pretty week. ---
**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 31, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/75 "2012-01-31T03:22:14Z")
I can also see that Peter Hadfield (Potholer54 on YouTube) has also been branded an alarmist, that item could not be farther from the truth. > **[How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics | Peter Hadfield](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism)** > > Peter Hadfield: Scientific candour, not polar bears and submerged cities, has helped my channel, Potholer54, to 27,000 subscribers > [@](#): > > Without question they [AGW skeptics] unsceptically believe dubious sources like Fox News, the Daily Express and amateur blogs. A parade of scientists (never mind if they have degrees in microbiology or metallurgy) tell them that ocean cycles are reponsible for global warming, or that there is no warming at all, or that even if there is there is nothing to worry about. > > **Spend just a few days in this bizarre world of disinformation and it is hard to understand how the audience could not come to the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. And if it is a hoax, the next obvious conclusion is that climate scientists must be either stupid or in it for the money.** Deconstructing all this spurious guff, one myth at a time, means checking it back to its source, finding the errors, and then pitting it against proper research studies. No need for condescention, insult, or appeals to emotion. > \*\* > Environmental activists who have subscribed to the channel also began to change their minds about climate change, but for a different reason. They learned that some tenets of the environmental movement are not founded on solid science. And they told me the series had armed them with the information they needed to rebut arguments from sceptic friends and relatives.\*\* > > Science is science because the knowledge we aquire comes from experimentation and observation, not guesswork, belief and hearsay. Sadly, most newspapers dispensed with a dedicated science correspondent years ago. Editors at the Mail may be a whizz at dissecting the problems of the National Health Service, but the morsel of science they understand can be drowned in their lunchtime gin-and-tonics. Once people understand this, the job of explaining real science is easy. ---
**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 31, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/76 "2012-01-31T03:29:53Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Also do you think that events that happened over a period of 20,000 years is valid method of deducing what the temperature rise will over the next 100 years? We are talking about things that we can’t accurately measure now, much less 55 million years ago. Apparently others do think so in this thread, but they use the evidence in an attempt to discredit what many experts report about those measurements. (It is actually a very basic contradiction from contrarians, but that does not stop them.) > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You should also be aware that Joe Romm is an extremely partisan source who isn’t constrained by actual facts in his attacks. During the congressional debates on the climate bill, he made vicious attacks on James Hansen, because Hansen thought that a carbon tax would be more effective than carbon credits. You really need to read some other sources about the PETM. We have a lot of speculation, but the hard data is pretty week. That is the dabate on policy, I would think on that Romm is indeed weak, but the cites \*\*Michael63129 \*\*used do link to the science. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/77 "2012-01-31T03:36:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You guys do know that **Blake** is a real scientist right? This is either totally irrelevant, or it’s a near slam-dunk against the deniers. If we’re debating based purely on the evidence, what do I care if **Blake** is a scientist, a housewife, or an abnormally intelligent sea cucumber? It’s the evidence that matters. But you may be suggesting that, because he’s a Real Scientist ™, I should give his opinion extra weight. In which case I should give the opinions of the thousands of Real Scientists who consider the evidence for AGW extra weight as well and watch their weight crush **Blake**. Which is honestly the approach I take. I’m perfectly happy with the specialization of knowledge we’ve got in our society. I don’t think hobbyists are equipped to debate AGW with folks who’ve devoted their lives to its study. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/78 "2012-01-31T03:44:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope,… Yep The rest of your non-sequitiur Denialist Blog spamming about Mongolia I have simply erased. I have no interest in such an issue. > [@](#): > > What I see there is that the temperature record for Antarctica clearly has been more or less stable for the last 5000 years or so, remember, it is the unprecedented warming that is the issue, not the ones explained by natural phenomena. No, what is of interest, in fact the only thing that we are discussing, is whether the temperature for thepast 400 years fits a near perfect exponential growth curve. Once again, you attempt to introduce a red herring about something being “unprecendented”, when it is clear to anyone who cares to look that the temperature trend of the past 50 years is not in any way different form the previous 230 years of exponential increase. ---
**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 31, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/79 "2012-01-31T03:51:12Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yep > > The rest of your non-sequitiur Denialist Blog spamming about Mongolia I have simply erased. I have no interest in such an issue. > > No, what is of interest, in fact the only thing that we are discussing, is whether the temperature for thepast 400 years fits a near perfect exponential growth curve. > > Once again, you attempt to introduce a red herring about something being “unprecendented”, when it is clear to anyone who cares to look that the temperature trend of the past 50 years is not in any way different form the previous 230 years of exponential increase. And that only works by ignoring what the experts on the matter say > **[Paleoclimatology | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology)** > > NCEI manages the world's largest archive of climate and paleoclimatology data. Our mission is to preserve and make this data and information available in order to understand and model environmental variability on an interannual to millennial time... > [@](#): > > Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. \*\*Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. \*\* BTW you should take back your accusations that I rely just on alarmist cites. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/80 "2012-01-31T03:52:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Once again ignoring the natural processes of then, the issue remains that unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming. Yes there is: it’s perfectly natural. > [@](#): > > Nah, that was just a warning coming from posterity, if you are so certain you should be making papers to counteract what NASA NOAA and others are even teaching now as the most likely facts behind the current warming. Once again, an argument form consensus. I repeat: science isn’t done by consensus. Science doen’t take vote sin the facts. And it’s interetsing to note how the alarmists have toned don there language. It is now just “the most likely”. Just 5 years ago this issue was settled. It was fact. Even in this thread we have seen repeated claims that it is clear form a single data set and a single melting glacier. Meanwhile once they get a whiff of real challenge, they cautiously start talking of “most likely”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=5)