# 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:** 6
**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 27, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/101 "2014-01-27T00:13:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > > [@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. I would like to get an explanation here. In what way is this a myth? Because I learned in basic physicsy stuff that when you add heat to a system, you tend to increase its turbulence. Capturing radiation loss is not practically different from adding heat. So how would global warming not lead to an increase in extreme weather patterns? ---
**Author:** ![WheatCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/258eb7/32.png) [@WheatCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WheatCat)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/102 "2014-01-27T00:26:05Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s an odd sort of logic, when somebody presents NCDC, NOAA and NASA sources to show evidence for something, and all the warmists can say is “you are dismissing GISS and NOAA and NASA”, an obvious conundrum. As always, science trumps rhetoric, and we have plenty of science in this regard. > > People who are actually experiencing the colder winters, especially farmers who raise livestock, and suppliers of heating oil and gas, they aren’t fooled by rhetoric or games with trends… > > So we have “the planet is warmer” being used to dismiss a clear winter trend, which just makes it much harder for anyone trying to retain credibility. It is IS appropriate to dismiss a winter trend. The year has 12 months, not three. So if, for example, world Dec-Jan-Feb winter temperatures dropped a degree a month (three degrees total) but rose a degree a month for the rest of the year (nine degrees total), then the worldwide difference would be a plus nine degree increase, right? Meaning that it would be a distortion to focus solely on the three winter months. Here are TWELVE-month per year graphics for : [1988-2013](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1988&year2=2013&base1=1988&base2=2013&radius=1200&pol=rob) And for: [1998-2013](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1998&year2=2013&base1=1998&base2=2013&radius=1200&pol=rob) The graphics beginning 1988 clearly indicate worldwide warming. The graphics beginning 1998 indicate little or no change. There is not much dissent from those conclusions by reasonable authorities on either side of the argument, meaning that the entire NASA graph-generating exercise in this thread has not cast any new light on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/103 "2014-01-27T00:38:09Z")
I have followed the ‘Global Warming’ debate for years. Both sides need to shut up for a second and actually listen to what the other side is saying. They aren’t mutually exclusive. ‘Global Warming’ got revised to be ‘Global Climate Change’ once the proponents of the Global Warming theory got strong indications of contradictory results. I believe that there is Global Warming going on yet I still can’t bring myself to support the proponents of the original theory because it obviously is not true in its original hypothesis. It is just sloppy science when you attribute everything you see happening to fit your original theory even if it doesn’t. We are dealing with chaotic systems here with strong feedback loops that nobody on Earth can influence or control even if they did understand it and it is obvious that nobody does right now. In short, there is probably some man-made phenomenon that is causing some climate change but it hasn’t been well-modeled or explained yet. Chaotic systems like global climate are among the hardest math and science problems to solve out of anything imaginable. It is not surprising that studies that depend on just a few variables get their predictions wrong. On the other hand, the true believers that think they can have a direct, personal influence on the same chaotic systems are equally ill-formed. The Earth itself is many orders of magnitude more complicated over anything that you can influence in the short or medium term (hundreds to thousands of years). If you think you have all the answers and understand it all, you are a crackpot of the highest order. It isn’t true. The truth is that nobody understands it all. All we can do is take best guesses about the next course of action. ---
**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 27, 2014, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/104 "2014-01-27T01:16:00Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > ‘Global Warming’ got revised to be ‘Global Climate Change’ once the proponents of the Global Warming theory got strong indications of contradictory results. no > [@"\[NASA](#): > > ([http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate\_by\_any\_other\_name.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html))"]… Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it “inadvertent climate modification.” This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate? > > For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So “inadvertent climate modification,” while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge. > > The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned “inadvertent climate modification.” Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: “if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” > > In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker’s usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used “global warming.” When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used “climate change.” ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/105 "2014-01-27T01:49:55Z")
> [@For You](#): > > no Yes. Map that out to future predictions down to specific consequences and then we might have something five years from now. Anything less than that is not science but just masturbatory prognostication. I am not a global warming denier but I still believe that scientists blew this one so far by claiming that they can predict chaotic systems with any certainty when they can’t. That overconfidence has a harmful effect on the overall theory to the general public. They need to admit that they still don’t understand many things about it but that the general trend is real. That is all they can say with certainty at this point. My whole is that I do believe that humans have had some impact on global climate but they overstated but the predictions have been overstated and many have been shown to be false. It is embarrassing for the scientific aggregators to take individual research contributions (which are most likely legitimate) and then blow them up into a comprehensive narrative that is not supported at all based on current outcomes. It is always better to admit that you don’t understand what is going on than to hold fast to your position. That is where the breakdown occurs. Let me put it to you this way. We can put a GPS satellite into orbit to beam back to the ground so that any person on Earth knows where they are within just a few meters at most. That is physics and real science. Now we have the Global Warming Hypothesis which predicts (depending on the year) that we may get more snow, less snow or it may be warmer or less warm than the previous years. You just broke down severely on the scientific method on this one. It may be true that it is a problem and I think it probably is but I don’t think people are smart enough to predict chaotic systems (I use that term for a very good reason) with any degree of certainty. Tell me how much warmer next year will be than this one and also 100 years from now and then we can talk. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/106 "2014-01-27T02:09:04Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I have followed the ‘Global Warming’ debate for years. Both sides need to shut up for a second and actually listen to what the other side is saying. They aren’t mutually exclusive. > > ‘Global Warming’ got revised to be ‘Global Climate Change’ once the proponents of the Global Warming theory got strong indications of contradictory results. Still no. > **[Global warming vs climate change](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)** > > \There have long been claims that some unspecificed > [@](#): > > There have long been claims that some unspecificed “they” has “changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’”. In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming ‘skeptic’. Be sure wo watch the video at the end of the article. What you miss is that there is one side that tells a lot of contradictory information expecting that some will stick. It is not the climate scientists. And no, climate scientists are not doing weather, but climate. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/107 "2014-01-27T02:14:30Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I have followed the ‘Global Warming’ debate for years. Both sides need to shut up for a second and actually listen to what the other side is saying. They aren’t mutually exclusive. A reasonable and logical advice. Meaning of course it will be completely ignored. The pitbulls are locked jaw and tooth, and reason isn’t going to sway anyone who is already in a pitched battle for the fate of the world. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > If you think you have all the answers and understand it all, you are a crackpot of the highest order. It isn’t true. The truth is that nobody understands it all. All we can do is take best guesses about the next course of action. Once more, a perfectly reasonable view, no doubt destined to fly unheeded, well over the head and shoulders of the believer as well as the cynic. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/108 "2014-01-27T02:25:23Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Now we have the Global Warming Hypothesis which predicts (depending on the year) that we may get more snow, less snow or it may be warmer or less warm than the previous years. You just broke down severely on the scientific method on this one. > **[Does record snowfall disprove global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html)** > > The 2009/2010 winter saw a number of dramatic, record breaking snowstorms. Early February saw two 'once in a 100 years' snowstorms hit Philadelphia, now being dubbed 'Snowmageddon'. Does record snowfall prove that global warming isn't happening? What... > [@](#): > > The 2009/2010 winter saw a number of dramatic, record breaking snowstorms. Early February saw two “once in a 100 years” snowstorms hit Philadelphia, now being dubbed “Snowmageddon”. Does record snowfall prove that global warming isn’t happening? What do observations say? 2009 was the second hottest year on record. January 2010 was the hottest January in the UAH satellite record. Satellites data indicates last month was the second hottest February in the satellite record. Observations tell us that rumours of global warming’s death have been greatly exaggerated. > > UAH Satellite temperature of near surface layer > Figure 1: UAH satellite measurement of near surface temperature. January 2010 is the hottest January in the satellite record. February 2010 is the second hottest February in the satellite record. Click on the image for larger version. > > If global warming is still happening, why are some areas experiencing record snowfall events? As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007). > > To claim that record snowfall is inconsistent with a warming world betrays a lack of understanding of the link between global warming and extreme precipitation. Global temperatures in the last few months of record snowfall are some of the hottest on record. Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events. > > UPDATE 8 Mar 2010: Based on some of the comments below, a few clarifying points are in order. Global warming cannot be said to cause a specific snowstorm or any extreme weather event for that matter. An appropriate metaphor to explain the difference between weather and climate is the rolling of a die. An extreme precipitation event is like rolling a six. The result is based on random, chaotic processes. However, if you weight the die, this increases the chances of rolling a six. Similarly, global warming increases the chances of extreme precipitation events. > > Global warming does not lead to increased snowstorms everywhere. They only increase in colder regions where the temperature still remains below freezing despite warming trends. Snowstorms are currently decreasing in warmer areas. Overall, the total amount of snow cover has shown a long-term decreasing trend. > > So to summate, record snowfall neither proves nor disproves global warming. However, the increasing trend in extreme precipitation events is consistent with global warming. And this will lead to increased snowstorms in certain, colder regions. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > It may be true that it is a problem and I think it probably is but I don’t think people are smart enough to predict chaotic systems (I use that term for a very good reason) with any degree of certainty. As pointed before, you are trying to make a climatologist into a weatherman, not the same. > **[Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted?](https://skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.htm)** > > \Weather is chaotic because air is light, it has low friction and viscosity, it expands strongly when in contact with hot surfaces and it conducts heat poorly. Therefore weather is never in equilibrium and the wind always blows. The climate is... > [@](#): > > One skeptic claim is that if weather is chaotic, then surely the climate must also be chaotic because “climate, of course, is very-long-range weather”. This view seems to logically render all skeptic non-human-causes of global warming worthless, since all predictions would be equally futile. As everybody knows, weather is both chaotic and strongly seasonal. Air temperatures undergo significant daily variations, at times varying unpredictably by more than 20°C in a given location within a few days. Climate indeed varies non-linearly, but this has not prevented scientists from making good predictions. Here, we peek into chaos and why climate is rather predictable over both decades and centuries > [@Shagnasty](#): > > Tell me how much warmer next year will be than this one and also 100 years from now and then we can talk. > [@](#): > > Looking at three of the leading climate indices we recognize the same problem that Lorenz faced. Actually proving that these indices are chaotic is exceedingly difficult, but Tziperman et al. (1994) showed in a simple model how El Niño is likely a seasonally induced chaotic resonance between the ocean and the atmosphere. Therefore, the climate system as a whole does exhibit some inherent minor unpredictability (Hansen et al. 2007). However, even though the El Niño of 1998 was a whopping 10% of the total heat content anomaly since 1950, it passed quickly. The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, works throughout the period. > > Returning to the temperature record (normalized to the period 1950-1980) we can now put names on things. Chaotic influences from oceans and volcanoes etc. makes both weather more unpredictable and creates the unpredictable part of the ‘wiggles’ around the average trend in climate. The climate is definitely non-linear, but also not chaotic in this plot. > > On the timescale of decades, every planetary object has a mean temperature mainly given by the power of its star according to Stefan- Boltzmann’s law combined with the greenhouse effect. If the sources and sinks of CO2 were chaotic and could quickly release and sequester large fractions of gas perhaps the climate could be chaotic. If the Earth’s orbit was affected by a moon of comparable mass to the planet itself, then the orbit and thus the Solar forcing could cause some amount of chaos in the climate. As it turns out the Moon is relatively small and actually stabilizes the rotation axis, which is considered a favorable condition for life on Earth. > > To sum up, the weather is chaotic because it can run free, climate is on a leash. Pull the leash hard enough and the climate responds. Can we talk? The point stands, you are even ignoring that contrarians are using the media to plant the idea that there are two sides with the same problems, that is not the truth, as former skeptic Barry Bickmore can tell you. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/vDNXuX6D60U/maxresdefault.jpg "Dr. Barry Bickmore - How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U) > [@](#): > > Barry Bickmore is Associate Professor of Geological Sciences at Brigham Young University. His research specialties are low-temperature geochemistry and geoscience education. In this presentation, he discusses how he moved from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. He then discusses how it is that people like him can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/109 "2014-01-27T02:30:12Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > A reasonable and logical advice. Meaning of course it will be completely ignored. The pitbulls are locked jaw and tooth, and reason isn’t going to sway anyone who is already in a pitched battle for the fate of the world. We can ignore that as there is plenty of evidence that shows that one side continues to be wrong and they do not have science on their side. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Once more, a perfectly reasonable view, no doubt destined to fly unheeded, well over the head and shoulders of the believer as well as the cynic. Of course scientists like Richard Alley are crackpots in the universe of FX. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/a69_owv4jEE/maxresdefault.jpg ""We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE) > [@](#): > > It’s true that Earth’s a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/110 "2014-01-27T02:34:58Z")
Like I predicted. As to the myth of “more heat = more chaos”, this is one of those idiot claims by people that just don’t seem to be able to reason. In their made up world, the summers should be all kind of hell for weather, and the tropics should be a constant churn of hideous unpredictable weather and chaos. As the continental climate regions warm each year the weather will become extreme (it does not of course). And all the tropical areas are just one boiling mess of chaos and extreme weather (complete nonsense of course) In their delusion the vast deserts, the hottest places, the weather is always extreme, rather than the dull monotony that exists in reality. Same for the tropical oceanic climates, with their warm SSTs and unending sunshine and heat, they are a disaster of extreme weather events, with the mythical water vapor feedback causing the temperatures to keep climbing day after day, until the oceans boil and it is just too hot to live. It’s even worse for the myth, as the polar summers are just one extreme weather event after another, with weakened jet streams allowing arctic air to spill into the tropics, and all kinds of chaos unfolds, which is just pure bullshit. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/111 "2014-01-27T02:40:43Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Map that out to future predictions down to specific consequences and then we might have something five years from now. Anything less than that is not science but just masturbatory prognostication. I wouldn’t go that far, as certain predictions are more of the “odds are” variety, but certainly the climate models are dead wrong at this point, no matter how hard the believers try to shoehorn everything into them still. Like the OP says, they are still trying to make the warming match the models, which is so ironic for a multitude of reasons. Not the least is the two big “excuses” for not seeing the predicted warming. Pollution from Indochina is one. The other is “the heat is going into the deep oceans”, where it can’t be measured, or at least doesn’t effect the SSts or troposphere readings. All three can’t be true at once. It is nonsense. Obviously not everyone is on the same page in this regard. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/112 "2014-01-27T02:42:41Z")
> [@WheatCat](#): > > It is IS appropriate to dismiss a winter trend. Not because you say so, that isn’t science, nor of any use. You can’t just make up something, and pretend it has the force of factual information. In the real world, the winters are extremely relevant. And in utmost irony, one reason the winter cold is so important is the need to provide vast amounts of fossil fuels to people, so they don’t die. Same for livestock and transportation, snow and cold are real world events that can’t be ignored. If “global warming” actually means more extreme winters, with the warming happening in the rest of the year, we need to know this, it actually matters. As some astute minds have pointed out, nobody actually knows what is going to happen, those that claim they do are nutjobs. Seriously, they are delusional, especially considering the evidence we have now, showing very much how wrong the predictions have turned out to be. > [@WheatCat](#): > > Here are TWELVE-month per year graphics for : > [1988-2013](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1988&year2=2013&base1=1988&base2=2013&radius=1200&pol=rob) > And for: > [1998-2013](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1998&year2=2013&base1=1998&base2=2013&radius=1200&pol=rob) > > The graphics beginning 1988 clearly indicate worldwide warming. The graphics beginning 1998 indicate little or no change. There is not much dissent from those conclusions by reasonable authorities on either side of the argument, meaning that the entire NASA graph-generating exercise in this thread has not cast any new light on the subject. Nobody has argued that the annual trend from 88 is warming, though the arguments over 1998-2013 are still ongoing. You are using a strawman argument. Please desist. Returning to the OP for a moment > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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. The description of people looking at the data as the\*\* “no warming in 16 years” crowd\*\* is quite telling, that this may not actually be a scientific debate going on. What a surprise. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/113 "2014-01-27T02:42:47Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s even worse for the myth, as the polar summers are just one extreme weather event after another, with weakened jet streams allowing arctic air to spill into the tropics, and all kinds of chaos unfolds, which is just pure bullshit. Why yes, of course the NISCD and NOAA are also into bullshit in Fx’s world. > **[Learn](https://nsidc.org/learn)** > > Quick facts, basic science, and information about snow, ice, and why the cryosphere matters The cryosphere includes all of the snow and ice-covered regions across the planet. > [@](#): > > The Arctic region is warmer than it used to be and it continues to get warmer. Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth. Most scientists agree that Arctic weather and climate are changing because of human-caused climate change. > > Arctic warming is causing changes to sea ice, snow cover, and the extent of permafrost in the Arctic. In the first half of 2010, air temperatures in the Arctic were 4° Celsius (7° Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1968 to 1996 reference period, according to NOAA. Satellite data show that over the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice cover has declined by 30 percent in September, the month that marks the end of the summer melt season. Satellite data also show that snow cover over land in the Arctic has decreased, and glaciers in Greenland and northern Canada are retreating. In addition, frozen ground in the Arctic has started to thaw out. Scientists first started to see changes in the Arctic climate in the 1970s and 1980s. > > Changes in the Arctic climate are important because the Arctic acts as a refrigerator for the rest of the world. The Arctic region gives off more heat to space than it absorbs from outside, which helps cool the planet. So changes in the Arctic climate could affect the climate in the rest of the world. > Arctic amplification > > Researchers say that the changes in the Arctic are worrisome, because they could lead to feedback effects that spur further warming. For instance, when the white sea ice melts in summer, areas of dark open water are exposed which can absorb more heat from the sun. That extra heat then helps melt even more ice. Permafrost may also be involved in feedbacks. As permafrost thaws, plants and animals that were frozen in the ground begin to decay. When they decay, they release carbon dioxide and methane back to the atmosphere that contributes to further warming. > > Scientists have already seen evidence that positive feedbacks are occurring in the Arctic. They call this Arctic amplification. Predicting the Arctic climate is difficult. Some of the changes in the Arctic could also have negative feedback effects, or effects that reduce the amount of warming. For example, if warm temperatures make the Arctic growing season longer, more plants can survive and take up more carbon from the air. However, most evidence suggests that the positive feedback effects outweigh the negative effects. A recent report by NOAA concluded that Arctic climate is unlikely to return to previous conditions. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/114 "2014-01-27T02:46:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I wouldn’t go that far, as certain predictions are more of the “odds are” variety, but certainly the climate models are dead wrong at this point, no matter how hard the believers try to shoehorn everything into them still. > > Like the OP says, they are still trying to make the warming match the models, which is so ironic for a multitude of reasons. Actually scientists like [Latif](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/) mentioned a long time ago how “pauses” are expected. Yet another strawman from FX. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/115 "2014-01-27T02:55:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Not because you say so, that isn’t science, nor of any use. You can’t just make up something, and pretend it has the force of factual information. Seems that it is contradiction time again. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > As some astute minds have pointed out, nobody actually knows what is going to happen, those that claim they do are nutjobs. Seriously, they are delusional, especially considering the evidence we have now, showing very much how wrong the predictions have turned out to be. > > Nobody has argued that the annual trend from 88 is warming, though the arguments over 1998-2013 are still ongoing. You are using a strawman argument. Please desist. > **[What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?](https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm)** > > \Subsequent comparison of observations with predictions find that Hansen's Scenario B (which most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.\ > [@](#): > > What do we learn from James Hansen’s 1988 prediction? > > What the science says… > > Although Hansen’s projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Returning to the OP for a moment The description of people looking at the data as the\*\* “no warming in 16 years” crowd\*\* is quite telling, that this may not actually be a scientific debate going on. > > What a surprise. Not a surprise, the “no warming in 16 years crowd” is wrong > **[Archived blog posts](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/archived-posts/blog-posts-not-on-met-office-website)** > > Can't find the blog post you're looking for? Some of our older posts have been archived and were not moved across to the Met Office website when we moved the blog. > [@](#): > > As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade. > > Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual. > > Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.” > > The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. **It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely**. ---
**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 27, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/116 "2014-01-27T03:04:06Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Now we have the Global Warming Hypothesis which predicts (depending on the year) that we may get more snow, less snow or it may be warmer or less warm than the previous years. You just broke down severely on the scientific method on this one. It may be true that it is a problem and I think it probably is but I don’t think people are smart enough to predict chaotic systems (I use that term for a very good reason) with any degree of certainty. I’m sorry, can you show me examples of these “predictions”? From what I can tell, they are doing large-scale trend analysis and plausible long-term effects predictions. Mostly, I am not hearing that global warming will or will not cause this or that specific thing, but that a given effect is likely. The problem is, there is a language divide between the science community and the general public – you put the press in that gap and the message gets distorted into the kind of gibberish you posted. I am not sure whether we can fix this. There seems to be a large and active ignorance-is-good community doing their best to make sure communication and understanding gets properly headed off at the pass. People do not even grasp the scale of the stakes in this issue, and given how arcane the material is, it is far too easy to confound almost everyone. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/117 "2014-01-27T03:08:36Z")
Thank you, **Shagnasty** , for such a welcome relief from ill-informed opinions. It is true that Climatology is a very inexacting science, a “soft” science as it were. Where’s the mathematical proofs, where is the basic theories? Pffft, we don’t have them. Hell, we’re still trying to figure what we should be measuring. I see people here posting volumes of speculation, conjecture and opinion … none of it proven … let me repeat … NONE OF IT PROVEN Show me the derivations, or are you just exterpulating? Only the stupid would talk about climate change in less than 100 year increments, only the very stupid. Go ahead … throw all the damn quotes you want too … I’ll ignore them because YOU don’t know what they mean. They sound fancy, they make you look smart, but they SAY nothing out of context. Hey stupid-people, read the GISS paper … ROFL. … it’s data is only been presented for corroberation … oh sorry, no way could you understand it. Climatology is for people who couldn’t handle third year Calculus ---
**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 27, 2014, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/118 "2014-01-27T03:15:28Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Thank you, **Shagnasty** , for such a welcome relief from ill-informed opinions. It is true that Climatology is a very inexacting science, a “soft” science as it were. Where’s the mathematical proofs, where is the basic theories? Pffft, we don’t have them. Hell, we’re still trying to figure what we should be measuring. I see people here posting volumes of speculation, conjecture and opinion … none of it proven … let me repeat … > > NONE OF IT PROVEN [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract) > [@](#): > > Abstract > > The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO2 band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6° C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8° C if the CO2 amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance. Variations in CO2 amount of this magnitude must have occurred during geological history; the resulting temperature changes were sufficiently large to influence the climate. The CO2 balance is discussed. The CO2 equilibrium between atmosphere and oceans is calculated with and without CaCO3 equilibrium, assuming that the average temperature changes with the CO2 concentration by the amount predicted by the CO2 theory. When the total CO2 is reduced below a critical value, it is found that the climate continuously oscillates between a glacial and an inter-glacial stage with a period of tens of thousands of years; there is no possible stable state for the climate. Simple explanations are provided by the CO2 theory for the increased precipitation at the onset of a glacial period, the time lag of millions of years between periods of mountain building and the ensuing glaciation, and the severe glaciation at the end of the Carboniferous. The extra CO2 released into the atmosphere by industrial processes and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise during the present century. In contrast with other theories of climate, the CO2 theory predicts that this warming trend will continue, at least for several centuries. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change ``` GILBERT N. PLASS ``` Volume 8, Issue 2, pages 140–154, May 1956 As usual, no one is perfect, some issues were not quite as accurate, but Plass is not called the father of the modern theory of climate change for nothing. > **[RealClimate: The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/)** > > RealClimate: Gilbert Plass, Lewis Kaplan, the history of the "carbon dioxide theory", climate sensitivity and how well it stands up 50 years later. ---
**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 27, 2014, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/119 "2014-01-27T03:27:41Z")
Of course now that we hear that “Only the stupid would talk about climate change in less than 100 year increments, only the very stupid.” One then has to realize that there are a lot of contrarians doing the same thing with the “warming pause” “or it is cooling now” (less of 100 year increment indeed) It does not ring any contradictory bells for some reason. And then there is the issue of where that insult is really going to. ---
**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 27, 2014, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/120 "2014-01-27T03:53:37Z")
@ **FXMastermind** : I believe that I’ve detected your debating strategy. It seems to be to make preposterous statements like the one about water vapor not being a feedback that you announced and was duly debunked in the other thread, or the new claim about cooling winters that was debunked in this one, and then just ignoring the refutations and plowing on with new fantasies. Hey, I’m cool with it if it makes you happy, but it doesn’t rank very high on the credibility scale. 🙂 > [@Shagnasty](#): > > I have followed the ‘Global Warming’ debate for years. Both sides need to shut up for a second and actually listen to what the other side is saying … We are dealing with chaotic systems here with strong feedback loops that nobody on Earth can influence or control even if they did understand it and it is obvious that nobody does right now. With all respect, that is pseudo-scientific claptrap. To begin with, “sides” on this issue exist only among scientific illiterates in the popular media and in numerous Internet junk science sites. There are no “sides” concerning the legitimacy of AGW in the legitimate published scientific community – [this would be an example](http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming), where in the last 13 months, out of 2,258 articles written by a total of 9,136 authors, **one** rejected AGW, and its origin was dubious to say the least. It seems to be related to the same bunch of lunatics at the Russian Pulkovo observatory who believe that CO2 isn’t a GHG. I’ve seen many such “skeptical” papers, and they invariably suffer from bad data or bad methodology or both, or sometimes are legitimate papers that have been grossly distorted by an ignorant or agenda-driven media. The appeal to chaotic systems argument is a misleading strawman that ignores important basic facts about climate change. Weather is chaotic, and climate can be in short timeframes, in regional geographies, or even in the longer term within tightly bounded constraints. What this misleading strawman tries to gloss over is that within the chaos that exists at various spatial and temporal levels, there is a clear and dominant signature of both the causes and the effects of anthropogenic climate change. The earth’s energy budget is a relative constant in the short term, but the cumulative net new amount of CO2 emitted can be measured and the amount of new new radiative forcing is straightforward physics. Climate may have chaotic elements, especially at local levels and short timeframes, but the earth’s total energy budget is not chaotic, and natural and anthropogenic forcings as they affect the overall planet can be measured. Chaotic components certainly exist, but they mainly apply to internal variabilities whose effect on the global energy budget is minimal and temporary and usually cycles between opposite signs. A good reflection of the ordered nature of the earth’s energy budget is that ice age cycles have been remarkably well bounded over the past 1.2 million years, with roughly regular ~100Ky cycles and very well bounded CO2 excursions between about 180 and 280 ppm. When the present CO2 level of 400 ppm is plotted on that geological timescale, you get a huge vertical spike going right off the chart. Radiative transfer physics is not a mystery, and climate change doesn’t happen by magic. The global temperature is just beginning to respond, and the earth’s energy budget is rapidly shifting, the climate system is being rapidly forced toward a major new equilibrium, and the probabilities of more and more extreme weather events are rapidly becoming higher. Arguing about “chaotic” components in this context is much like pissing into a hurricane. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=7)