# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/41 "2014-01-18T20:27:33Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Somebody’d better tell that third-rate [Nature.com](http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525) thingy; they just published about the lull, and GASP, they mentioned PDO…OMG, Monkton and Watts have take over Nature!!! :rolleyes: Right. And that was peer-reviewed by… … … …I’ll wait. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Of course our resident warmists can’t answer the Nature article. It’s an entirely lukewarm editorial which seems to largely go against the current developments in the peer-reviewed science? That’s pretty straightforward. > [@](#): > > Arctic rebound from a record low into above-average territory. [Well that’s just straight-up wrong](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2_CY.png). > [@](#): > > But, most importqntly, more and more climatists are acceptin the lull as a real thing and not a product of simple noise. They can’t say it doesn’t exist. Really? They are? News to me. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The guys who went to look for proff in the antarctic getting stuck on the ice in summer and getting rescued by chopper: Priceless. This just in: winters are cold! This post is just vile - the point made therein a lovely combination of vindictive, judgmental, and stupid. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/42 "2014-01-18T20:41:34Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > The problem with climate models is that it’s very difficult to know when they are accurately modeling the system. > > Creating a model that matches past history doesn’t really confirm that the model is good, it may be overfitted to the past data and not really be much help predicting the future (a common problem with models in general). > > Unfortunately, we only have 1 past history, limited data, we can’t really perform experiments on the climate and the timelines are pretty long (to test future predictions), which means validating a climate model during our lifetime is a very very difficult task. Can you be more specific about just what point you are trying to make? Because I although I agree with the veracity of what you’re saying, I don’t see its relevance either in the context in which I mentioned climate models or in the larger context of validating AGW. I was making the point earlier that we know that oceans are responsible for the overwhelming proportion of the earth’s heat uptake compared to land and atmosphere; in light of this, and what we know about the earth’s energy budget, it’s plausible that a temporary increase in the heat uptake of deep ocean layers could cause an observed slowdown in land and atmosphere warming. The fact that climate models simulate this circulation behavior adds to the strength of the hypothesis. That’s it – as I said before, it means no more and no less than that. I’m not sure what the relevance is of throwing in what sounds like a set of canned talking points about why climate models are no good. It bothers me because similar accusations are made against climate models when they project the impact on climate of increasing levels of CO2. The basic argument for AGW doesn’t rest on climate models; it derives from multiple lines of evidence across a vast array of phenomena, beginning with the first principles of radiative transfer physics, paleoclimate observations, and observations during the instrumental temperature era. That said, climate models are an important tool in helping to quantify the impacts of GHG’s. And while I think we all recognize the limitations you mention, they seem to underrate or ignore the fact that climate models are reliable **enough** to be extremely useful. And there are large numbers of different climate model types – for instance traditional atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation models, the newer and more comprehensive earth system models that include biogeochemical cycles, and many specialized and regional models. Are you suggesting they’re all useless? All modern AOGCMs and ESMs are based on physical principles, not just random attempts to match climate behaviors. Furthermore, major intercomparison initiatives like CMIP5 provide opportunities to evaluate radically different models by comparing them against each other, often with surprisingly good agreement. The argument that all these different models successfully reproduce historical climate behavior due to some bizarre coincidence begins to sound like outright denialism. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/43 "2014-01-18T20:53:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure that you do, did you follow the link to how the IPCC reviews the models? I just now read it. Did you read it? Do you even understand it? It freaking supported the exact points I made previously. Here are a couple of many relevant quotes: “What does the accuracy of a climate model’s simulation of past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of its projections of climate change? **This question is just beginning to be addressed**” Did you read that? JUST BEGINNING TO BE ADDRESSED. Why? Because it’s difficult, progress is slow, etc. etc. “For any given metric, it is important to assess how good a test it is of model results for making projections of future climate change. **This cannot be tested directly,** since there are no observed periods with forcing changes exactly analogous to those expected over the 21st century.” Another obvious point - you can’t do experiments with the climate. We can’t just change the climate and see if the response matches the model. It’s clear the people that wrote that report understand the complexities and limits and future challenges. Serious questions: Did you read that chapter? Did you comprehend the details? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/44 "2014-01-18T20:59:37Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Can you be more specific about just what point you are trying to make? Because I although I agree with the veracity of what you’re saying, I don’t see its relevance either in the context in which I mentioned climate models or in the larger context of validating AGW. > > I was making the point earlier that we know that oceans are responsible for the overwhelming proportion of the earth’s heat uptake compared to land and atmosphere; in light of this, and what we know about the earth’s energy budget, it’s plausible that a temporary increase in the heat uptake of deep ocean layers could cause an observed slowdown in land and atmosphere warming. The fact that climate models simulate this circulation behavior adds to the strength of the hypothesis. That’s it – as I said before, it means no more and no less than that. I’m not sure what the relevance is of throwing in what sounds like a set of canned talking points about why climate models are no good. My only point was to temper the confidence of the result, I wasn’t sure what level of confidence in modeling and understanding the system you were implying. I wouldn’t disagree with any part of what you just posted. ---
**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 19, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/45 "2014-01-19T00:01:06Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I just now read it. > > Did you read it? > > Do you even understand it? > > It freaking supported the exact points I made previously. “we can’t really perform experiments on the climate and the timelines are pretty long” Uh, no, that was a very absolute point, again, if you are correct then doing indirect experiments are never valid and we should had drop relativity early. The point stands, one can not say such absolute say so when experiments were already done, timelines are taken into account (Latif) and progress has been done. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/46 "2014-01-19T00:35:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > “we can’t really perform experiments on the climate and the timelines are pretty long” > > Uh, no, that was a very absolute point, again, if you are correct then doing indirect experiments are never valid and we should had drop relativity early. The point stands, one can not say such absolute say so when experiments were already done, timelines are taken into account (Latif) and progress has been done. We can’t perform experiments ON the climate (as in manipulate the climate) to see if the things we think are important when modeling it really are the things that are important. Do you think we are able to manipulate the climate to test our models? ---
**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 19, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/47 "2014-01-19T01:14:40Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > We can’t perform experiments ON the climate (as in manipulate the climate) to see if the things we think are important when modeling it really are the things that are important. > > Do you think we are able to manipulate the climate to test our models? Yes, the experiment \*\*continues \*\*with the human released CO2. > **[Detecting humanity’s fingerprint in the atmosphere](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/detecting-humanitys-fingerprint-in-the-atmosphere/)** > > Analysis demonstrates how climate models and data can be combined for attribution. > [@](#): > > We recently covered the extensive efforts made to ensure that climate models accurately reflect the processes that drive our planet’s climate. The new paper shows how the resulting models can be applied to understand what’s actually happening to our planet. In this regard, the models are just like the ones that are used in astrophysics and plate tectonics: they help us understand the processes that drive events that we can’t control in the lab, but on which we can gather data. > > In this case, a large number of factors, from stochastic processes to natural cycles in the ocean currents, create short-term variability in the climate system—we can view those as noise. Superimposed on those factors are signals, significant changes that drive long-term changes in the climate. These are often termed forcings, since they push the climate into a new equilibrium state. Decades of study have identified forcings, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and alterations in the level of greenhouse gasses. An attribution study such as this simply looks at all of these factors in order to determine which of them are causing recent changes in the climate system. > > Attributions work because the different forcings affect the atmosphere in distinct ways—in the language of the paper, they leave fingerprints. So, for example, the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere cools it, since ozone is a greenhouse gas that can trap heat in this layer of the atmosphere. In contrast, large volcanic eruptions add lots of material to the stratosphere; some of it absorbs light, leading to stratospheric heating. But volcanoes aren’t simply the converse of ozone loss; some of those same particles reflect light, keeping it from reaching the lower atmosphere (called the troposphere), thereby cooling the lower atmosphere. These distinctive fingerprints allow us to attribute the changes we see to different forcings. > > In this case, the authors focused on matching the satellite record, which provides a three-dimensional view of the atmosphere, with both depth and pole-to-pole details about the temperature. They compare this record to the output of a suite of climate models, run under various conditions. These included things like only solar forcings, only volcanic forcings, and all human influences (such as greenhouse gasses, aerosol emissions, and ozone depletion). They also did runs with only natural and only human influences, and then everything combined. > > By tracking the trends for a large chunk of satellite data (January 1979 to December 2005), they were able to show that solar forcings were largely neutral (which makes sense, given that solar activity hasn’t changed that much during the period). With the exception of Mount Pinatubo, there haven’t been any major volcanic eruptions during the period, either. As a result, the net natural influences were pretty minor: a very slight cooling of the stratosphere outside the poles, and an equally slight warming of the lower atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/48 "2014-01-19T03:02:15Z")
What you’ve cited here describes the construction of a model (yet again). Do you understand that in the scientific method, constructing a model is a separate step from conducting an experiment to validate that model? If you really do believe that experiments are possible on the global climate, could you tell me what you would use as a control group? ---
**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 19, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/49 "2014-01-19T03:22:41Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > What you’ve cited here describes the construction of a model (yet again). Do you understand that in the scientific method, constructing a model is a separate step from conducting an experiment to validate that model? Uh, they told you that they investigated how models compare with reality: > [@](#): > > In this case, the authors focused on matching the satellite record, which provides a three-dimensional view of the atmosphere, with both depth and pole-to-pole details about the temperature. They compare this record to the output of a suite of climate models, run under various conditions. These included things like only solar forcings, only volcanic forcings, and all human influences (such as greenhouse gasses, aerosol emissions, and ozone depletion). They also did runs with only natural and only human influences, and then everything combined. > [@Koxinga](#): > > If you really do believe that experiments are possible on the global climate, could you tell me what you would use as a control group? As the volcanoes showed the “control group” is a period with little or no volcano activity. And so on regarding other possible forcings that could driving the current warming, but the human signal is showing now, as the skeptics at Berkeley earth put it: > **[About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth](https://berkeleyearth.org/about/)** > > Todays Challenge Global warming is they defining environmental challenge of our time. The need for quality, accessible scientific data about global warming could not be more urgent. Yet there are few independent sources of historic global temperature... > [@](#): > > From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/50 "2014-01-19T04:28:18Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > > > The guys who went to look for proff in the antarctic getting stuck on the ice in summer and getting rescued by chopper: Priceless. > > This just in: winters are cold! This post is just vile - the point made therein a lovely combination of vindictive, judgmental, and stupid. Not so much vile as pitiotic. **Ají de Gallina** might come point out to you that the event happened just a week after the summer solstice, waving that about as a rippling banner of irony. But, at 67°S, the ship was beyond the southern ocean current, a 125 sverdrup flow that helps isolate Antarctica and keep it pretty darn icy all year long. Worse yet, the ship became trapped in the ice because of _extreme weather_, which tends to be an effect of _climate change_: it is quite possible that the very global warming that the scientic detachment on the ship were studying did in fact contribute to their being trapped. The “pricelessness” here is but an enormous _whooosh_. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/51 "2014-01-19T04:49:42Z")
Good ghod man, that is some badass use of “sverdrup.” That is my new favorite word. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/52 "2014-01-19T05:46:12Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Good ghod man, that is some badass use of “sverdrup.” That is my new favorite word. I can imagine it being used for some really disgusting hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/53 "2014-01-19T07:28:35Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > We can’t perform experiments ON the climate (as in manipulate the climate) to see if the things we think are important when modeling it really are the things that are important. > > Do you think we are able to manipulate the climate to test our models? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, the experiment \*\*continues \*\*with the human released CO2. > > [Detecting humanity’s fingerprint in the atmosphere - Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/detecting-humanitys-fingerprint-in-the-atmosphere/) What did they manipulate in the climate in that case? Hint: nothing. At this point I can only assume that English is not your first language, so let’s try this: do you know what it means to “manipulate” something? The point is that we can’t just change aspects of the climate this way or that to see how the whole a system responds and whether our models match that response. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/54 "2014-01-19T14:55:45Z")
> [@For You](#): > > a 125 sverdrup flow. At first I figured that was a typo, but when I couldn’t come up with anything it might have been meant to be, googled and learned. Thanks! > [@RaftPeople](#): > > What did they manipulate in the climate in that case? Hint: nothing. > > At this point I can only assume that English is not your first language, so let’s try this: do you know what it means to “manipulate” something? > > The point is that we can’t just change aspects of the climate this way or that to see how the whole a system responds and whether our models match that response. No, but we can take note when unusual things happen and see how well the models fit, Pinatubo being an excellent example. Your point is valid that climate models are very difficult to validate, especially as they have a lot of tweakable parameters that have been tweaked to fit historical data, so we can’t validated them using the past, only the future. A number of models are proving to be fairly effective at predicting the current situation from that of 10 years ago. Of course, given a boatload of different models, some will work and some won’t. Yes, it’s difficult, but modeling is pretty much the only tool we have, and a lot of effort goes into continually checking and updating the models. Don’t expect GIGO to make the slightest admissions against interest. His style doesn’t permit it. Regardless, he’s an excellent resource for information and understanding. Yes, I know, he’d be more believable if he showed a bit of understanding of the valid points made by others, but it’s grueling to be constantly fighting the good fight against the ignorance of the naysayers, and he gets stuck in his defensive mode. BTW, you’re wrong that we can’t make experiments. I’m confident that when climate change starts causing significant geopolitical and economic problems, we’ll start trying things like sulfur injection. Bingo! Experiment! Unfortunately, that’s not the ideal scenario, and we can thank the political clout of the American skeptics for it. ---
**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 19, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/55 "2014-01-19T15:36:06Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Yes, it’s difficult, but modeling is pretty much the only tool we have, . Not true. Not even close to true. > [@For You](#): > > Worse yet, the ship became trapped in the ice because of _extreme weather_, which tends to be an effect of _climate change_. That pernicious myth needs to be curb stomped. Once and for all. Fight ignorance, don’t repeat it. ---
**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 19, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/56 "2014-01-19T15:52:06Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > What did they manipulate in the climate in that case? Hint: nothing. Nature did, really once again you are trying to make things like the experiments that confirmed relativity useless. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > At this point I can only assume that English is not your first language, so let’s try this: do you know what it means to “manipulate” something? When you are reduced to manipulate semantics I don’t think you have a good point. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > The point is that we can’t just change aspects of the climate this way or that to see how the whole a system responds and whether our models match that response. As history shows, science progresses also by waiting for conditions in nature to change so variables can be investigated. In this case the accumulations of CO2 is a change that can be detected and as even skeptical scientists report, humans are playing a part. Most scientists report that we are the main drivers now and the effect of human released CO2 will 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 19, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/57 "2014-01-19T16:00:32Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Not true. Not even close to true. Of course not, [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/OJ6Z04VJDco/hqdefault.jpg "27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) > [@](#): > > “Skeptics” have all kinds of positions on climate science, depending on their personal beliefs and feelings. This video addresses those critics who claim there is no evidence for the link between CO2 and global temperature. Whether you want to call such changes “catastrophic” or benign, or terrible, or bad, or good is your feeling, and therefore outside the scope of the science. I have to point out that some who think I’m not making slight admissions is not really paying attention, nor it seems that they are paying attention at the absolutism that deniers and even lukewarmers are showing even here: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > That pernicious myth needs to be curb stomped. Once and for all. > > Fight ignorance, don’t repeat it. > **[Is extreme weather caused by global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm)** > > \There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.\ > [@](#): > > There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves. > [@](#): > > There are numerous examples of increased extreme weather frequency already being attributed to humans in the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. For example, Pall et al. (2011): > > ``` > "Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000" > > ``` > > Min et al. (2011): > > ``` > "Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas." > > ``` > > Dai et al. (2011): > > ``` > "All the four forms of the PDSI show widespread drying over Africa, East and South Asia, and other areas from 1950 to 2008, and most of this drying is due to recent warming. The global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74% (of global land area) per decade from 1950 to 2008." > > ``` > > Zwiers et al. (2011): > > ``` > "Therefore, it is concluded that the influence of anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on extreme temperatures that have impacts on human society and natural systems at global and regional scales" > > ``` > > Coumou & Rahmstorf (2012): > > ``` > "Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase." > > ``` > > Hansen et al. (2012): > > ``` > "we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small." > > ``` ---
**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 19, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/58 "2014-01-19T16:11:49Z")
BTW, speaking of not repeating ignorance, it has to be pointed again to ignorance like that. Going for absolutes like declaring that no experiments can be performed is just telling us a very incomplete view of what researchers are doing, and then continuing to claim that we can not look at past timelines implies the denial of paleoclimate science. ---
**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 19, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/59 "2014-01-19T17:55:15Z")
The global warming mythos has become so persuasive to the warmists that they actually believe that before global warming there weren’t extreme winters like the NH has been experiencing, including the extreme cold and the polar vortex scare. They actually want to claim the winters as caused by global warming. At which point all semblance of science is gone. They stand firm on their pseudo-scientific pedestal, convinced that nothing can disprove their belief. Which is actually true. Nothing can get through the thick headed warmist mentality. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/60 "2014-01-19T18:17:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Fight ignorance, don’t repeat it. How about you start, then. What have you got? Of substance, I mean, not this “Oh, _ **wrong, wrong, WRONG!** _” stuff. This is not _The McLoughlin Report_, it is serious discussion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=4)