# 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:** 4
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/61 "2014-01-19T18:19:26Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > 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. Thanks for your post. This post (and **wolfpup’s** response previously) are what I consider part of a normal discussion about a complex and difficult topic. I’m not on any “side”, just interested in what we know and what we are still trying to figure out. It’s a fun topic precisely because it’s complex and difficult with many unknowns. > [@](#): > > Don’t expect GIGO to make the slightest admissions against interest. His style doesn’t permit it. At this point **GIGO’s** posts are worthless. Although my last post was relatively polite, I was seriously trying to determine if his language is so bad as to not even understand the point, or if he is developmentally disabled. I chose to assume the language angle. Repeatedly arguing against such basic valid points that even the climate scientists wouldn’t argue about causes a poor perception of any information he may provide or any point he may attempt to make. The fact that he is unaware of his own behavior and the effect it has only makes the perception worse. > [@](#): > > 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. Ok, I’ll rephrase that as “there is limited ability to perform controlled experiments”. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/62 "2014-01-19T18:21:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > 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. > **[No, the Polar Vortex Does Not Disprove Global Warming](https://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/08/climate_change_the_north_polar_vortex_and_global_warming.html)** > > The picture above, taken on Jan. 6, 2014, by the NOAA’s GOES East weather satellite, shows what a big chunk of the U.S. knows all too well: the souther ... > [@](#): > > The usual suspects are out in force. Donald Trump took to Twitter to trumpet his ignorance about global warming, once again showing the planet that an ability to make money doesn’t mean you have any understanding of science. Or reality. Again, see Mooney’s article for details on why Trump is wrong. > > Rush Limbaugh went so far as to claim the term “North Polar Vortex” was made up by the left and the media to promote the hoax of global warming. I guess he’s too busy spinning conspiracy theories to use Google (climatologist Peter Gleick also shows the term has been around for decades). Incidentally, we see a polar vortex on Saturn and its moon Titan as well. Maybe they’re hoaxes, too. > > Fox News, of course, was right at the maelstrom’s heart. They’ve had show after show featuring pundit after pundit claiming global warming is dead. Do I even have to say that weather is not climate? As the saying goes, climate is what you expect, weather is what you get. Saying a cold snap disproves global warming is ridiculous. As I was saying, it is clear one side is ignoring when they go for the absolutes and continue to accuse the other side of the same with very little to go on. As one noticed, scientists have been discussing and identifying polar vortexes in the past decades. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/63 "2014-01-19T18:33:36Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > At this point **GIGO’s** posts are worthless. Your opinion, not what I get from even scientists in the SDMB. What I got so far is that you were not aware of how inadequate your sources are regarding this subject. Repeating the point that we can not perform experiments ignores what it was done for a long time when conditions change and nature does the job for us to test. (of course if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to record it, whatever theories one forester had on what critters do with a naturally fallen tree would remain unproven) 🙂 There is indeed a need to rephrase one’s position, and not come with absolutes that in reality are made to ignore what is being done, and there is also the repeated claim that we can not look at past timelines. It also implies that paleoclimate is useless. ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/64 "2014-01-19T18:42:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nature did, really once again you are trying to make things like the experiments that confirmed relativity useless. > > When you are reduced to manipulate semantics I don’t think you have a good point. > > 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. This post really confirms a basic lack of knowledge about the point being made. This was the original point: We can’t perform experiments ON the climate which makes progress much more difficult than if we could. Performing observations and natural experiments is a much more difficult method of figuring out what is going on and whether the model accurately accounts for everything that is important. Nowhere in that valid point does it say “throw out all climate science and give up”, which appears to be your interpretation. This is Stephen Schneider from Stanford’s wording: “We can’t carry out controlled experiments with Earth’s greenhouse effect because we have only one Earth and because such experiments would take decades or longer for definitive results.” The longer you argue against the climate scientists, the more you dig yourself into a position of looking like someone that truly does not understand the basic issues. This point is something the climate scientists (and pretty much everyone else but you apparently) know intuitively and immediately, it’s not even up for discussion. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/65 "2014-01-19T18:56:59Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > This post really confirms a basic lack of knowledge about the point being made. > > This was the original point: > We can’t perform experiments ON the climate which makes progress much more difficult than if we could. > > Performing observations and natural experiments is a much more difficult method of figuring out what is going on and whether the model accurately accounts for everything that is important. > > Nowhere in that valid point does it say “throw out all climate science and give up”, which appears to be your interpretation. > This is Stephen Schneider from Stanford’s wording: > “We can’t carry out controlled experiments with Earth’s greenhouse effect because > we have only one Earth and because such experiments would take decades or > longer for definitive results.” > The longer you argue against the climate scientists, the more you dig yourself into a position of looking like someone that truly does not understand the basic issues. This point is something the climate scientists (and pretty much everyone else but you apparently) know intuitively and immediately, it’s not even up for discussion. :rolleyes: Read it again, that was granted already, Indeed I do interpret what the point is when using models in climate science, the experiments can and are carried when nature does the job in controling the experiment. And so it goes for paleoclimate. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/66 "2014-01-19T19:09:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Your opinion, not what I get from even scientists in the SDMB. Ok, let’s test this, see if you can find scientists that disagree with these points: 1 - Controlled experiments Being able to run controlled experiments on the climate would speed up the validation of models. If we had a 2nd Earth and we had the resources to manipulate various aspects to see what the result would be, we would be able to gain a better understanding faster of the climate. For example: they could have stopped man-made CO2 emissions completely starting in the 80’s and by now we would have a much better idea about how stopping man-made CO2 emissions would impact the climate. That is what you are arguing against - that this type of controlled experiment would not gain us information faster. 2 - Long climate cycle If the climate cycle were shorter (say 3 years instead of 30) we could gain information faster even without controlled experiments. Today a 15 year plateau is either a plateau or part of a change. If the cycle were 3 years then a 15 year plateau could be categorized as a change much more easily. You are also arguing against this point, why I cannot understand. > [@](#): > > What I got so far is that you were not aware of how inadequate your sources are regarding this subject. WTF? What sources are you talking about? This is just obvious stuff to anyone that looks at the situation and does a little analysis. Hmmm, 1 Earth, very large, 30 year climate cycles (at minimum): conclusion, tough to run controlled experiments. Who wouldn’t come to that conclusion? Seriously is that not just painfully obvious to everyone? But if you want sources how about these: Scientists that wrote the IPCC report you directed me to that supported my arguments? Or the climate scientists at Stanford? Or pretty much every climate scientist everywhere? > [@](#): > > Repeating the point that we can not perform experiments ignores what it was done for a long time when conditions change and nature does the job for us to test. (of course if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to record it, whatever theories one forester had on what critters do with a naturally fallen tree would remain unproven) 🙂 Observational and natural experiments are certainly valid (of course), but with a system this complex it is very difficult to use just these types of tools to gain understanding. > [@](#): > > There is indeed a need to rephrase one’s position, Not at all. Performing an experiment “on the climate” and “manipulate” are pretty clear. > [@](#): > > and not come with absolutes that in reality are made to ignore what is being done, The purpose of the point was exactly what was stated. It is very very difficult to validate climate models because we can’t perform experiments on the climate. I didn’t say impossible. > [@](#): > > and there is also the repeated claim that we can not look at past timelines. It also implies that paleoclimate is useless. You simply don’t understand the math involved. If you have 1 timeline that your model is being created to replicate, it is very difficult to know if you modeled the system or if you just matched that 1 timeline. If the starting conditions for the real system were a little different, would your model still work or would it deviate because it has a bias towards the other timeline/data. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/67 "2014-01-19T19:15:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Read it again, that was granted already, Indeed I do interpret what the point is when using models in climate science, the experiments can and are carried when nature does the job in controling the experiment. > > And so it goes for paleoclimate. This back and forth is just freaking ridiculous (not sure why I persist, I’m a masochist? not sure). Here’s a climate scientist, I don’t know anything about him other than he’s at Stanford so I assume he has at least some brain power: “We can’t carry out controlled experiments with Earth’s greenhouse effect because we have only one Earth” Here’s **GIGO** from the internet: “nature does the job in controling the experiment” I think you should call up Stephen Schneider and argue with him instead me. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/68 "2014-01-19T19:23:08Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > This back and forth is just freaking ridiculous (not sure why I persist, I’m a masochist? not sure). > > Here’s a climate scientist, I don’t know anything about him other than he’s at Stanford so I assume he has at least some brain power: > “We can’t carry out controlled experiments with Earth’s greenhouse effect because we have only one Earth” Correct. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Here’s **GIGO** from the internet: > “nature does the job in controling the experiment” That is correct also. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > I think you should call up Stephen Schneider and argue with him instead me. Wrong people to argue, you should tell all those people that awarded Einstein recognition to remove those recognitions as the moon gravity bending the light from stars as predicted by Einstein was done thanks to nature doing the hard work. ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/69 "2014-01-19T19:47:09Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I think you should call up Stephen Schneider and argue with him instead me. Far be it for me to interrupt this thread with facts, but you should both be informed that [Stephen Schneider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider) died on July 19, 2010. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/70 "2014-01-19T19:54:55Z")
Here’s GIGO from the internet: “nature does the job in controling the experiment” > [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is correct also. No, it isn’t correct. Scientists call that a “natural” or “observational” experiment. They do not call that a “controlled” experiment. I challenge you to go enlighten yourself on this topic. > [@](#): > > Wrong people to argue, you should tell all those people that awarded Einstein recognition to remove those recognitions as the moon gravity bending the light from stars as predicted by Einstein was done thanks to nature doing the hard work. Yep, that is valid method to gain information and understanding. Do you understand the difference between that and a controlled experiment? ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/71 "2014-01-19T19:55:06Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Observational and natural experiments are certainly valid (of course), but with a system this complex it is very difficult to use just these types of tools to gain understanding. And the point I made stands, it is difficult, not impossible and scientists have done so already, so much so that academics agree that that is the case. Really, in the end what Stephen Schneider insisted was that models are an important part of the whole picture even with uncertainties, they are not the only one of the many lines of inquiry that told him and many others that humans are changing the climate. The reality is that this FUD attempt was seen before on many occasions, (as it is the FUD that looks for a cherry pick to minimize the big picture that even that researcher told us) it is important to realize that it is an old maneuver and one should go first with the assumption that you are not aware of that. [http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/tag/stephen-schneider/](http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/tag/stephen-schneider/) > [@](#): > > Schneider, a professor at Stanford University, served on the international research panel on global warming that received the 2007 Nobel Prize along with former Vice President Al Gore. He also worked closely with Center for Ocean Solutions staff during the 2009 climate negotiations in Copenhagen. According to his wife, Stanford professor Terry Root, Schneider suffered a heart attack while onboard a plane as it landed in London. > > Dubbed a “climate warrior” on the New York Times Dot Eath blog, Schneider spent his active career shining the spotlight on the causes and consequences of climate change. He was the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change, and authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers and other publications. In recent years, he battled with mantle cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer, and in 2005 published a book on his ordeal called The Patient from Hell. > > During his decades-long career to advance climate science, Schneider wrote a number of books charting the effects of climate change on wildlife and ecosystems in the United States, and later chronicled its effect on the nation’s politics and policy. He advised every presidential administration from Nixon to Obama. In 1992, he received a “genius grant” from the MacArthur Foundation for his research. > > During his lifetime, Schneider made great strides in communicating directly with the public, such as his recent book Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate. He appeared on news and science television programs, wrote books and articles, blogged, and maintained a website called Mediarology to give scientists advice for engaging with the public. His strong voice and scientific > conviction in the climate change discussion will be sorely missed. As Scheider would say: https://www.youtube.com/embed/4_eJdX6y4hM?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque “It is not balance, it is utter distortion”. ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/72 "2014-01-19T19:57:41Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Yep, that is valid method to gain information and understanding. > > Do you understand the difference between that and a controlled experiment? Yes, do you understand that not even Schneider (as a contributor to early IPCC reports) would not toss out the valid method used to gain information and understanding? ---
**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, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/73 "2014-01-19T19:58:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Far be it for me to interrupt this thread with facts, but you should both be informed that [Stephen Schneider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider) died on July 19, 2010. That just make me laugh pretty hard (not that he’s dead, but that I randomly chose a dead person). Clearly a strategy on my part to obstruct the flow of information and further the deniers position worldwide. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/74 "2014-01-19T20:02:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, do you understand that not even Schneider (as a contributor to early IPCC reports) would not toss out the valid method used to gain information and understanding? Did I ever say we should toss out a valid method to gain information and understanding? Are you even aware of the point I was making? It’s as if you don’t even read the posts, you just feed the words into “Eliza - Climate Version” and out pops a response with some of the relevant words but zero understanding. This is pretty comical. ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/75 "2014-01-19T20:11:36Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Did I ever say we should toss out a valid method to gain information and understanding? > > Are you even aware of the point I was making? > > It’s as if you don’t even read the posts, you just feed the words into “Eliza - Climate Version” and out pops a response with some of the relevant words but zero understanding. > > This is pretty comical. Nope, in reality I already got the concession I looked for, but you act like if that is not the case. And I already granted your point, I’m just saying that indeed, indeed, there is a distortion of what researchers are doing if we only insist that one item like direct experimentation is the only correct way to deal with an issue in science. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/76 "2014-01-19T20:31:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, in reality I already got the concession I looked for, but you act like if that is not the case. And I already granted your point, I’m just saying that indeed, indeed, there is a distortion of what researchers are doing if we only insist that one item like direct experimentation is the only correct way to deal with an issue in science. What do you think I conceded? I didn’t ever say that direct experimentation is the only correct way to deal with an issue. Did you think I did say that? If so please point out where I said that. ---
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/77 "2014-01-19T20:47:22Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > What do you think I conceded? > > I didn’t ever say that direct experimentation is the only correct way to deal with an issue. Did you think I did say that? If so please point out where I said that. That was the point, yes, no more is needed. The problem I saw was that your early absolutist say so was implying that that was the only way for scientists to work with models in relation to this issue. Since you clarified, there are no more problems… Except using that quote from Schneider, as it turns out I was aware that he was dead, but then again so is Einstein, a lot of what they talked about is still valid, and well, using him to press for a choice that even he thought that it was not the whole history is a distortion in my book. [http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm](http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm) > [@](#): > > I have mentioned the ice ages since this is a “natural experiment” that we use, not to forecast the future, but to build understanding of climate processes and to validate the tools that we do use to forecast the future – that is, our climate theories embodied in mathematical models. Are there any other such natural experiments? The answer is “yes there are many,” the two most prominent being (1) episodic volcanic eruptions which throw dust in the stratosphere that reflects for a few years a few watts per square meter of solar energy that otherwise would have reached the lower atmosphere and (2) the seasonal cycle. Let’s consider volcanic eruptions first. Volcanic dust veils should cool the planet. In fact, the last major eruption, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, was forecast to cool the earth’s lower atmosphere on the order of several tenths of a degree by a number of climate modeling groups – in advance of the actual data to confirm – and indeed, that is roughly what happened. However, it could be argued that a few tenths of a degree cooling, or warming for that matter, might be a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate system, and indeed, fluctuations of that magnitude are a part of the natural background “climatic noise.” How then could we distinguish the climatic signal of the volcanic eruption from the noise of the natural variability? In any one eruption it is difficult to do so since the signal to noise ratio is about one, i.e. the magnitude of the cooling expected is about equal to the magnitude of the natural fluctuations in non-volcanic years, and therefore for any one event we cannot have very much confidence that a signal has been observed.\*\* So the fact that the Pinatubo results showed up about as predicted doesn’t, by itself, give a lot of confidence, although as a circumstantial bit of evidence is quite useful. However, another volcanic eruption in 1983, El Chich¢n, was also followed by several tenths of a degree cooling, as was the effect after Mt. Agung in 1963 or Mt. Krakatoa in the Victorian period. > > In other words, by looking at the results of several volcanic eruptions and compositing, a number of scientists (including Mass and Schneider, 1977) used this technique and discovered that indeed there was a clear and obvious correlation which suggests that when a few watts of energy over every square meter of the earth is removed by volcanic dust veils in the stratosphere, the lower atmosphere will indeed cool by a few tenths of degrees – the very magnitude predicted by the same computer models that we use to forecast the effects of a few watts per square meter of sustained heating from global warming.\*\* > > 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.\*\* Indeed, indirect evidence like ice ages, volcanic eruptions and the seasonal cycle simulation skills of models are prime reasons why many of us in the scientific community have for the past twenty years expected that “demonstrable” (e.g… see p.11 of Schneider and Mesirow, 1976 – in which I projected just such a change) anthropogenic climate change was not unlikely by the 21st century. Testimony of Stephen H. Schneider Professor, Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University July 10, 1997 CLIMATE CHANGE: CAUSES, IMPACTS AND UNCERTAINTIES ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/78 "2014-01-26T06:34:46Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/) > > So basically, even though the “no warming in 16 years” crowd was wrong before, now they’re _really_ wrong - the data doesn’t even _look_ like there’s been “no warming”. Hell, 1998 doesn’t even seem to be the hottest year on record any more. The article goes on to explain that the actual warming is 0.12C, which is far closer to the average of 0.16C than the 0.06C present in the hadcrut models. > > Is this news? Did I miss the memo? I don’t believe in global warming or global cooling.To many places in the world are too hot and other places too cold.Go to northerin US states and Canada and say global warming and they will say it is the opposite it is below normal this year. Go to Dallas and Atlanta and there where many times the weather was below normal this year amd last year.Yes the Antarctica and north pole is melting!! Well too many other places it seem like a freek show .Go back two or three years ago in the northerin US states and Canada not as cold what it should be!! And last year well more so this year well below normal. Also have fun when the weather fluctuates by 10 or 15 degrees by the next day!! Yes the weather is messesd up but it seems more like a roller coaster ride.Not slowly of getting hotter. ---
**Author:** ![Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steely_Dan_Fan)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/79 "2014-01-26T06:47:20Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > I don’t believe in global warming or global cooling.To many places in the world are too hot and other places too cold.Go to northerin US states and Canada and say global warming and they will say it is the opposite it is below normal this year. > > Go to Dallas and Atlanta and there where many times the weather was below normal this year amd last year.Yes the Antarctica and north pole is melting!! Well too many other places it seem like a freek show .Go back two or three years ago in the northerin US states and Canada not as cold what it should be!! And last year well more so this year well below normal. > > Also have fun when the weather fluctuates by 10 or 15 degrees by the next day!! Yes the weather is messesd up but it seems more like a roller coaster ride.Not slowly of getting hotter. Wow. It’s as if not having the slightest clue what you’re talking about is a badge of pride for you or something. ---
**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 26, 2014, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/80 "2014-01-26T07:24:01Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > I don’t believe in global warming or global cooling.To many places in the world are too hot and other places too cold.Go to northerin US states and Canada and say global warming and they will say it is the opposite it is below normal this year. > > Go to Dallas and Atlanta and there where many times the weather was below normal this year amd last year.Yes the Antarctica and north pole is melting!! Well too many other places it seem like a freek show .Go back two or three years ago in the northerin US states and Canada not as cold what it should be!! And last year well more so this year well below normal. > > Also have fun when the weather fluctuates by 10 or 15 degrees by the next day!! Yes the weather is messesd up but it seems more like a roller coaster ride.Not slowly of getting hotter. Even XKCD knows that is wrong: > **[XKCD's epic takedown of climate deniers](https://www.salon.com/2014/01/24/xkcd_has_the_perfect_takedown_of_climate_deniers/)** > > The web comic nails it > [@](#): > > XKCD creator Randall Munroe has gotten it absolutely, hilariously right with his newest comic, addressing the polar vortex trolls who insist that cold weather somehow disproves climate change: > [@](#): > > Climate Central calculated the number of nights below a specific temperature threshold for dozens of U.S. cities based on the local climatology and current weather conditions. The calculations encompass the entire winter season, and show that overall there is a downward trend in the number of extreme cold nights like we’re currently experiencing – although there are variations in a few cities. This trend is consistent with climate studies showing that overall, winters across the contiguous U.S. have warmed by .61°F per decade since 1970, and every region has warmed at least somewhat over that time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=5)