# Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056 "2014-01-17T13:47:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/181 "2014-01-28T02:08:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [ol] > [/ol] > Sorry, but as you can see from your previous reply to another that claims to be in the middle it is clear that \*\*BrainGlutton \*\*was correct, a lot of the discussion going on where it counts is not in the golden middle, and indeed FX did not had a good point there. Interesting opinion. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point stands anyhow, thinking that it is “too bad we don’t have weather pattern histories as it would help the science very much” is not really much to the point and once again, a lot of the items in that line of criticism is coming from denial sources. Really? Because climate scientists look for this information, too. _Because it helps their understanding._ Just because some make arguments beyond reason using that lack of information doesn’t mean that it’s not still a gap of understanding. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/182 "2014-01-28T02:20:36Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Really? Because climate scientists look for this information, too. _Because it helps their understanding._ There are extensive synoptic charts, going back centuries in some areas. Since the fifties there is an abundant amount of information about weather patterns in the NH, including jet stream data. Some of this is even online and free to view. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/183 "2014-01-28T02:22:00Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well, then I welcome you to: > > 1. Point out existing peer-reviewed research addressing this hypothesis > 2. Do the legwork and produce your own, and submit it for peer review. That’s an interesting tactic during a debate. It doesn’t really support your position, but it sounds important. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/184 "2014-01-28T02:23:25Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I don’t think it’s possible to introduce more ignorance into a debate/discussion in which valid points (even from climate model scientists themselves) are argued against in a knee-jerk fashion without even grasping their validity or relevance. I believe it’s possible , and even probable. The more chaff thrown about, the more noise in the discussion, the less chance of anyone with a life being able to follow along. ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/185 "2014-01-28T02:24:14Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Really? Because climate scientists look for this information, too. _Because it helps their understanding._ Just because some make arguments beyond reason using that lack of information doesn’t mean that it’s not still a gap of understanding. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Correct, just saying that when one looks at the current state of affairs, it is just like 2007 regarding the ice loss acceleration, the information is searched for and it is important, but regarding if we should add the weather extremes in the negative or the positive column the sensible thing now is to punt like the IPCC did with the ice loss in 2007. What it has to be noticed here is that now there is more evidence to report that the ice loss acceleration has landed on the growing bad column. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/186 "2014-01-28T02:25:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Don’t think so, what it is clear in your case though is that just like a contrarian you will get stuck forever with the impression that I did not grasp the point, I actually did and I said what was needed also: Schneider would roll in his grave if he had see you only mentioning just a quote were he explained about direct experimentation not being possible with models and omitting all his lifetime work of observational experiments with models. Contrarian: Do you think I’m a “contrarian” or a “denier”? What do you think I deny? Experiments: This response is a perfect example of how you can’t seem to separate individual points in this discussion. Anything that even correctly identifies challenges for climate scientists is interpreted by you to mean that all climate science should be thrown out. Just because I raise a point about the inability to perform controlled experiments on the environment doesn’t mean I’ve said anything about observational or natural experiments. Observational and natural experiments can be used to gain information/knowledge. I would never claim they can’t. But when I point out that the inability to perform controlled experiments makes it very very tough to confirm models in our lifetime - you incorrectly interpret that as a statement about observational and natural experiments. Even when I tell you the difference you persist. Even this post in which I clearly state that information and knowledge gained due to observational and natural experiments should NOT be tossed out, it probably won’t register that I have that opinion. And if I end this post with the valid statement that the inability to perform controlled experiments coupled with the long cycles makes it very very difficult to confirm climate models in our lifetime - you will interpret that as me saying that observational and natural experiments are irrelevant and worthless. It’s kind of entertaining. I persist for the sole reason that it would be a real accomplishment to get you to ever grasp/admit what the climate scientists freely admit (all of them) that those two things do present significant challenges when trying to validate the models. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/187 "2014-01-28T02:26:01Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I believe it’s possible , and even probable. The more chaff thrown about, the more noise in the discussion, the less chance of anyone with a life being able to follow along. With all respect, that’s a rhetorical MO you are exceptionally skilled at. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/188 "2014-01-28T02:27:20Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > FWIW I got it, and thought it was funny. Thank you, I was laughing 🙂 ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/189 "2014-01-28T02:31:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I believe it’s possible , and even probable. The more chaff thrown about, the more noise in the discussion, the less chance of anyone with a life being able to follow along. And that is why one consults experts, just as one should go to see an astronomer to explain the amazing stuff out there and not an astrologer, one should look at what the climate scientists are reporting and not the contrarians. [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/) > [@](#): > > Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths. > > Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/190 "2014-01-28T02:37:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is why one consults experts Of course, and we shouldn’t even be having a discussion about anything. Just a list of experts to go read. No need for any debate, much less an informative and lively discussion. :smack: ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/191 "2014-01-28T02:44:07Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Contrarian: > Do you think I’m a “contrarian” or a “denier”? Neither, just a confused fellow that needs to be reminded of the big picture that people like Schneider report. As for the rest of your post, I already agree, I’m correct in my impression that you cannot ever let go of the idea that I disagree with Schneider when he reported about direct experimentation, on the contrary, I already did agree, and I will just continue to report that just leaving it like that (with his lifetime work not mentioned) was a disservice to Schneider and the true state of affairs on how useful computer models are nowadays. Of course the problem persists when after all that you say that: > [@RaftPeople](#): > > I persist for the sole reason that it would be a real accomplishment to get you to ever grasp/admit what the climate scientists freely admit (all of them) that those two things do present significant challenges when trying to validate the models. Because that clearly tells others that you continue to act like if the testimony by Schneider was not done and that his \*\*lifetime \*\* of work validating the models was never done. ---
**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 28, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/192 "2014-01-28T02:52:32Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Of course, and we shouldn’t even be having a discussion about anything. Just a list of experts to go read. No need for any debate, much less an informative and lively discussion. > > :smack: Moving the goalposts, I was replying for your evasive point that was actually very valid, we can not spend our lives learning about everything, like in the case of the astronomy we can have a lively discussion about if we should explore the asteroids for profit, but it is really silly to consult an astrologer for the best time to launch the expedition. The denier sources that think cherry picking makes good science are just as astrologers because they also look for information that confirms their already made biases. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/193 "2014-01-28T03:02:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that shows that you did not look at the research from Latif and others. > > [Leading climate scientist challenges Mail on Sunday's use of his research | Climate crisis | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif) “Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it”. Well. That answers everything doesn’t it. The models don’t work because shit happens. Nice. ---
**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 28, 2014, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/194 "2014-01-28T03:14:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > “Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it”. > > Well. That answers everything doesn’t it. The models don’t work because shit happens. > > Nice. Of course that is not what he said, we already know that most of the sources you rely on do not care about accuracy. > **[Anatomy of a lie: How Marc Morano and Lorne Gunter spun Mojib Latif’s remarks...](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/anatomy-of-a-lie-how-morano-and-gunter-spun-latif-out-of-contro/)** > > The blogosphere has been atwitter over the latest supposed defection of a climate scientist to the dark side. Once again, the contrarians have been egged on by a well-timed fabrication from Marc Mo… > [@](#): > > In response to my initial query, Latif summarized his remarks as follows: > > > [@](#): > > > > What I said is that the cooling in the Atlantic and Pacific may offset global warming for a decade so that there may be not much of an additional warming. … I also pointed out that the British group issued a competing forecast for the next decade. They predict that global warming will continue at the rate of the last decades. Thus there is quite some uncertainty about the short-term evolution. Yet we all agree that in the long run, say by 2050 and thereafter, the earth will considerably warm, if we do not considerably reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. > > Note that this is clearly not an expectation of cooling in the near term, but rather considerably reduced warming. I went on to present the decadal projections and the differences calculated, as seen above. Latif provided the following comments: > > > [@](#): > > > > This is all correct. However, our forecast more than one decade ahead does not have much skill, as we know from hindcasts (retropsective forecasts). I think what is important to convey is that there are short-term fluctuations which are superimposed on the long-term warming trend. > > Exactly. And clearly a precise time for resumption of warming can not be fixed in the Keenlyside/Latif model. Nevertheless, the forecasts beyond one decade (i.e. beyond 2015) call for strong warming in the long term and any uncertainties may cut either way: > > > [@](#): > > > > We showed the graph more than a decade ahead to see how long the effect of the initial conditions lasts. It is a forecast, but as I pointed out, we do not have much skill at longer lead times. It may well be that the warming will be even stronger. It seems to me that it is like the 70’s all over again. (Warning: Disco) [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/XB3S0fnOr0M/maxresdefault.jpg "In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M) > [@](#): > > Everyone has a favorite decade, and for Climate deniers, that decade has got to be, the 70s. > > Yes, the decade of disco, kung fu, and watergate > > Because in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. Those crazy climate scientists! Why can’t they make up their minds? > > But is that really true? No, it was not, the misrepresentation happened in the popular media, now it is mostly in popular denier media. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/195 "2014-01-28T03:26:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Neither, just a confused fellow that needs to be reminded of the big picture that people like Schneider report. Well you called me both a contrarian and a denier when responding to my posts in the past. What do you think I’m confused about? > [@](#): > > Because that clearly tells others that you continue to act like if the testimony by Schneider was not done and that his \*\*lifetime \*\* of work validating the models was never done. Here’s the last sentence of the conclusion of this article: Validating ENSO Simulation in Coupled Climate Models “The presence of this error despite our progress in coupled modeling in the last decade reminds us of **our limited understanding of the climate system**.” Basically you are arguing with the climate scientists at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/196 "2014-01-28T03:29:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course that is not what he said, we already know that most of the sources you rely on do not care about accuracy. I just got done quoting him. From your cite. ---
**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 28, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/197 "2014-01-28T03:39:14Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Well you called me both a contrarian and a denier when responding to my posts in the past. > > What do you think I’m confused about? > > Here’s the last sentence of the conclusion of this article: > Validating ENSO Simulation in Coupled Climate Models > > “The presence of this error despite our progress in coupled modeling in the last decade reminds us of **our limited understanding of the climate system**.” > > Basically you are arguing with the climate scientists at this point. That is referring to the ENSO or in other words, el nino, a subset of the whole picture, AFAIK it also includes ocean data that was not very complete until recently. The point I made stands, by not mentioning what Schneider did you are omitting a lot of what he had done. [http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm](http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm) > [@](#): > > What other natural experiments might we have to test climate sensitivity? My favorite is one that happens every year – the seasons. Winter predictably follows summer, being some fifteen degrees colder in the Northern Hemisphere and five degrees colder than summer in the Southern Hemisphere. The reason the Southern Hemisphere has a smaller seasonal cycle is because it has much more ocean than land, and water has a higher heat retaining capacity than land or air. Since a season is not long enough for the planet to reach an equilibrium temperature change, therefore, the more land dominated Northern Hemisphere has lower heat capacity and thus a larger seasonal cycle of surface temperature. How well do the climate models do in reproducing this change? The answer is “extraordinarily well.” Although what the absolute temperatures models may simulate can be off by as much as five or six degrees in some regions of the world for some seasons, the models’ capacity to reproduce the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of surface air temperatures, by and large, is quite good. (It is less good for other variables, however, particularly hydrological systems.) Now, if we were making a factor of ten error by either overestimating or underestimating the sensitivity of the climate to radiative forcing, it would be difficult for the models to reproduce the different seasonal cycle surface temperature amplitudes over land and oceans as well as they do. This is another piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that current estimate of climate sensitivity is not off by a factor of ten, as some “contrarians” assert. What I can say here is that it is really uncalled for to use the own words of a researcher to ignore what he spent a lifetime working with. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/198 "2014-01-28T03:41:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > the misrepresentation happened in the popular media, now it is mostly in popular denier media. As so often happens, this lie is ironic, in that the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” is actually a warmist claim, a straw man they trot out, and then try to defeat in battle. (and yes, this is far afield from the topic, as all GIGO dominated topics end up) But it’s funny, A Google search turns up a few dozen hits, and every single one of them is the same thing, “Because in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming.” That’s the only phrase that claims “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”. It doesn’t exist otherwise. You won’t find it on any climate blogs, denialist sites (whatever they are), and especially not in any news stories. Which is why it’s so damn funny. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/199 "2014-01-28T03:43:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I just got done quoting him. From your cite. I used to think facts would matter too. They won’t. ---
**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 28, 2014, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/200 "2014-01-28T03:53:29Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I just got done quoting him. From your cite. Like \*\*RaftPeople \*\*did with Schneider, not reporting what else he said was just like Colmes and Hannity on FOX. What we have is a Quote confirming an already made up view vs A lifetime of work showing how the early quote was not complete and ends misrepresenting what the researcher actually said Same old. And I prefer to see the big picture, sure there are problems with models, but it is really reckless to claim that there are no validations or observational experiments that showed that the models he used were very good to use indeed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=11)