# 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:** 7
**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, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/121 "2014-01-27T03:55:25Z")
Yet another long opinion piece, with no scientific or any evidence really. ---
**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, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/122 "2014-01-27T04:06:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Yet another long opinion piece, with no scientific or any evidence really. It is more on the money rather than the incomplete cherry picks that you do that ignore what the scientists that work with that data are telling you is really happening. [http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.UuXa0rRlDV8](http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.UuXa0rRlDV8) > [@](#): > > NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated report Tuesday on temperatures around the globe in 2013. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago. > > The average temperature in 2013 was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 Celsius), which is 1.1 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880, according to the new analysis. Exact rankings for individual years are sensitive to data inputs and analysis methods. > > temperature maps > These maps and this graph show NASA’s global temperature data and trends as they relate to El Niño years since 1950. > Image Credit: > NASA’s Earth Observatory > > “Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “While one year or one season can be affected by random weather events, this analysis shows the necessity for continued, long-term monitoring.” > > Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increases in greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere are driving a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous. > > Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and plays a major role in controlling changes to Earth’s climate. It occurs naturally and also is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere presently is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years ---
**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, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/123 "2014-01-27T04:36:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increases in greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere are driving a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, **scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous**. [http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.UuXa0rRlDV8](http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.UuXa0rRlDV8) At least there is something that can be determined. [Last decade 2004-2013](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2004&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol), even using GISS shows a decline, for the annual global mean. [Satellite data shows more](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/trend), but so what? You see how easy that is to show? [Here’s the previus decade](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=1994&year2=2003&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol). [And the satellite data](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1994/plot/rss/from:2003/trend). So when you see " **scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous**", and that obviously didn’t happen, that’s when the fun begins. Haha. The staunch “denier” wants to dance and sing and declare “victory”, a most unscientific view of things. But the firm believer in global doom, that’s another ball of melting wax. The different stories are enlightening, even entertaining. Here they are in no particular order. It’s not happening. It’s happening, but it means nothing. It was expected. The warming hasn’t stopped, it is in the oceans. Pollution from China is counteracting the warming. Models show this can happen, it means nothing. The warming hasn’t stopped, we can’t measure the arctic and that is where it is happening. Strong La Nino’s countered the warming. It’s still warmer than ever. The only thing for sure is that according to the measurements, the warming did not go as predicted, by any model. Now the winters, that is another story. ---
**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, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/124 "2014-01-27T04:38:28Z")
And still, no scientist from the organizations you are cherry picking support the conclusions coming from your twisted say so’s and cherry picks. \*\*wolfpup \*\*is correct. And here is more of what GISS reports: > [@](#): > > The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year in the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, measured at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, was about 315 parts per million. This measurement peaked last year at more than 400 parts per million. > > While the world experienced relatively warm temperatures in 2013, the continental United States experienced the 42nd warmest year on record, according to GISS analysis. For some other countries, such as Australia, 2013 was the hottest year on record. ---
**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, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/125 "2014-01-27T05:33:43Z")
Unlike the claims of the uninformed, who resist and deny even the thought that winters might be trending colder, peer reviewed published science has to deal with facts, not rhetoric, hence the peer reviewed science states clearly what the data I presented shows. > [@](#): > > For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. > **[Cohenetal\_ERL12.pdf](https://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf)** > > 1612.83 KB Like I say, actual science and data never swayed the alarmists in any way. ---
**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, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/126 "2014-01-27T06:02:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Unlike the claims of the uninformed, who resist and deny even the thought that winters might be trending colder, peer reviewed published science has to deal with facts, not rhetoric, hence the peer reviewed science states clearly what the data I presented shows. > [http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal\_ERL12.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf) > > Like I say, actual science and data never swayed the alarmists in any way. > [@](#): > > Arctic warming, increasing snow cover > and widespread boreal winter cooling That paper does not contradict the overall picture, it only remarks on an specific location and once again it confirms what scientists are reporting elsewhere, global warming can increase snow cover in some regions. > [@](#): > > A warmer, more moisture-laden Arctic atmosphere in the > autumn contributes to an increase in Eurasian snow cover > during that season. This change in snow cover dynamically > forces negative AO conditions the following winter. We > deduce that one main reason for models failing to capture > the observed wintertime cooling is probably their poor > representation of snow cover variability and the associated > dynamical relationships with atmospheric circulation trends > (Hardiman et al 2008 , Jeong et al 2011). Incorporation of the > snow cover–AO relationship into seasonal forecasts is shown > to greatly improve their abilities, and hence long-term climate > solutions from coupled climate models may also benefit from > improved snow–AO relationships. As pointed before, there are no easy pickings, so cherry pickings and misinterpretations of scientific papers are the norm among contrarians. ---
**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, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/127 "2014-01-27T06:18:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That paper does not contradict the overall picture, it only remarks on an specific location and once again it confirms what scientists are reporting elsewhere, global warming can increase snow cover in some regions. Once again, you are using a strawman argument, responding to something nobody claimed, and avoiding the clear data and information I posted. The colder winters is indeed a real problem for climate models, as they predict they exact opposite, based on the physics of CO2 forced warming, and assumptions about feedbacks from CO2 forced warming. And that is the issue you keep avoiding. Because somebody posted a link to a Salon page which used xkcd as a source, and the xkcd used St, Louis as an example, I posted a link to an actual science source, to show why it is nonsense. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Here is a real source, which shows clearly why it’s such bullshit using 1970 as the start point for your crazy alarmists nonsense. > [NCDC climate data for winter in Missouri](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/23/00/tmp/3/02/1895-2013?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000) You see? xkcd used Missouri (which they got from Climate Depot) to “debunk” the idea that winters are cold there. And they used data only from 1970 to do so. If you actually look at the data, you can see why they did, and why it’s bullshit in regards to climate. > [@wolfpup](#): > > But on this latest fantasy of yours, first of all I note that you’ve chosen to select a “trends” map type rather than the commonly used “anomalies” map type. That’s fine – though it’s much more common to map anomalies, for the obvious reason that the trend analysis is peculiarly sensitive to the time period chosen, which in your case is an oddly short one. No, the reason we use trends is because it shows the change happening, rather than the individual years, or months, or events. Climate is weather over time, so you have to use time periods to know if there is a change, and what the change is. The reason Cohen et al(2012) used data from 1987-2012, or from 1988-2012 is to show that the trend in large areas shows cooling. It’s what the peer rreviewed paper is talking about. I used shorter trends to dispel the myth that winters are getting warmer most everywhere, which is obviously bullshit when you look at the data. If the data showed warmer winters, as predicted by theory, then that is what I would be discussing. The thing about science is, you can state your opinion all you want, it won’t change the facts. But if you actually study the facts, you might change your opinion. ---
**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, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/128 "2014-01-27T06:22:51Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Once again, you are using a strawman argument, responding to something nobody claimed, and avoiding the clear data and information I posted. The colder winters is indeed a real problem for climate models, as they predict they exact opposite, based on the physics of CO2 forced warming, and assumptions about feedbacks from CO2 forced warming. And that is the issue you keep avoiding. That is not accurate as I posted already about the research of Latif, the reality is that you are avoiding the fact that researchers predicted the “apparent” pauses and cold winters in locations. And of course you did not claim it the point is that what you reported was not the complete picture of what the scientific paper was all about: How \*\*warming \*\*is increasing snow cover in some regions. ---
**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, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/129 "2014-01-27T06:52:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That paper does not contradict the overall picture, Nobody said that, it’s why you are fighting your own straw man. I stated clearly, multiple times now, that the data, the trends, the reality of what has happened, shows that there is something wrong with the theory, and the models based on theory. This does not mean that an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not cause warming. I never said that. It might be too complicated for most to follow, but hell, that never stopped me before. Here is [2002 to present for January for the NH,](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/every:12) notice the cooling trend. Here is [the same for July,](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.5/every:12) notice the warming trend. [Spring trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.25/every:12), not cooling [Fall trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.75/every:12), hard to see, but it’s warming Even with the entire NH it shows up. The winter season is cooling, but that is the only real cooling trend. [Here’s all the above together](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/every:3). As well as [the annual trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/every:3/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/trend). You can do the math yourself, so don’t take my word for it. **The cooling trend for NH winters is what is bringing the entire annual trend down**. If you ignore the winter trend, you will see warming has not stopped, not paused. Obviously this view, which I consider a fact based view, as it is based on the facts as we know them, obviously this view does not put me in either camp. It’s also not from any blog, paper or any research I have found anywhere online or off. It’s just the facts. I used 2002 because that is the date from which even GISS shows a global cooling trend. But, and this is the important part, if you THROW OUT THE WINTER TREND and only use the rest of the year, it’s still warming. The global mean would still be going up. This is evident when you compare the summer anomalies (red) with the winter anomalies (green) for the NH. [Like this](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1990.5/every:12/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1990/every:12). (those are not actually the winter vs summer, but doing that makes it very hard to see, but the trend is the same when using the entire season) The same thing shows up [looking at just the land data for the NH](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/from:1990.5/every:12/plot/crutem4vnh/from:1990/every:12) Notice that the red line just keeps going up. (NH midsummer anomaly) [Same for this plot](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vnh/from:1990.4/every:12/plot/crutem4vnh/from:1990.1/every:12), red is early summer, green is February If it wasn’t for the winter trending down, there would be no pause in warming. Which is EXACTLY why you can’t just hand wave away the winters in the NH ---
**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, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/130 "2014-01-27T06:56:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And of course you did not claim it the point is that what you reported was not the complete picture of what the scientific paper was all about: How \*\*warming \*\*is increasing snow cover in some regions. Utter nonsense. The authors are putting forth the possibility that the reduction in arctic sea ice is leading to an increase in fall snowfall, leading to the cooling winters with more snow. Not that warmer temperatures in winter are causing more snow, but that the larger open water in the arctic, along with the … oh hell, anyone can read the paper and see what they say. It’s certainly not that myth that “warmer winters will lead to more snow”, which is bogus as hell. ---
**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, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/131 "2014-01-27T07:52:35Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Utter nonsense. Sure, tell everyone that “Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling” is not in their title and their conclusions. As usual if you think you are better than the scientists you should publish to show the error of their ways, not holding my breath for that one. ---
**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, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/132 "2014-01-27T07:54:20Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nobody said that, it’s why you are fighting your own straw man. > > I stated clearly, multiple times now, that the data, the trends, the reality of what has happened, shows that there is something wrong with the theory, and the models based on theory. This does not mean that an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not cause warming. I never said that. > > It might be too complicated for most to follow, but hell, that never stopped me before. > > Here is [2002 to present for January for the NH,](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/every:12) notice the cooling trend. > > Here is [the same for July,](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.5/every:12) notice the warming trend. > > [Spring trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.25/every:12), not cooling > > [Fall trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002.75/every:12), hard to see, but it’s warming > > Even with the entire NH it shows up. The winter season is cooling, but that is the only real cooling trend. > > [Here’s all the above together](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/every:3). As well as [the annual trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/every:3/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:2002/trend). > > You can do the math yourself, so don’t take my word for it. I take the word from [woodfortress.org](http://woodfortress.org), thank you very much: > [@](#): > > Beware sharp tools > > However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility… Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it’s easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others. ---
**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, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/133 "2014-01-27T12:52:11Z")
Hey, **Gigo** , where’s Plass’ calculations? Hey, **Gigo** , did you read the conclusions from Plass (1956)? Doesn’t say what you want it to say, or was it to difficult to copy/paste? Where’s your SCIENTIFIC PROOF? You don’t have any? Maybe that’s why you flood this thread with nonsense. When you ape others, you sound like a fool … when your speak from you HEART, I can tell you care … Please, only your heart is convincing. ---
**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, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/134 "2014-01-27T14:46:43Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Hey, **Gigo** , where’s Plass’ calculations? > > Hey, **Gigo** , did you read the conclusions from Plass (1956)? > > Doesn’t say what you want it to say, or was it to difficult to copy/paste? > > Where’s your SCIENTIFIC PROOF? > > You don’t have any? Maybe that’s why you flood this thread with nonsense. Do you think Scientific America and all the scientists that referenced Plass’ work are full of it? Do tell. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > When you ape others, you sound like a fool … when your speak from you HEART, I can tell you care … Please, only your heart is convincing. Piffle, the science record is not there to reinvent the wheel, the only people that complaint about it are just ignorant of the record, or are willing to remain ignorant about that record. Besides the point was that indeed, you only told everyone about your ignorance when claiming there was no basic theory, and you were just boasting about that ignorance. BTW the paper from Plass with the calculations and conclusion is available as a PDF on the link on the right of my cite, just saying that you also need to get some experience on looking at the cites that were already given to you. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/135 "2014-01-27T15:42:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle, the science record is not there to reinvent the wheel, the only people that complaint about it are just ignorant of the record, or are willing to remain ignorant about that record. The scientific _data_ is there for all to see. And all of the data we have points to a long term warming trend of 0.2 - 0.3 C per decade. This has increased between 1/10th and 1/3rd in the last two decades. Some people object to the interpretation that it’s all humanity’s fault. Let them offer up evidence and different views of the data. Pretending that there is a monopoly on how the data is to be interpreted is incredibly dangerous and harkens back to the attempts of the Catholic Church to tell scientists what conclusion to reach on on their research. Dismissing this stuff out of hand is what empowers those that are claiming that we need to repeal the EPA and other such reckless ideas. FX makes a good point: The reason that the global averages have flattened out may have a lot to do with the winters getting colder. Instead of attacking this view of the data, maybe you should discuss the potential causes: A) Climate Change may be pushing the cold air out of the arctic and sending more cold air our way. Nuance to this: It’ll disappear over time as the cold air becomes warmer. Points for it: Explains why masses of cold air are descending on the northern hemisphere more vigorously now then they have in the last two decades. Points against it: Previous to 1980, there was a lot of cold air, but no one recording how air masses were moving in the arctic. More study needed: Is Antarctica displaying the same trends in the summer/winter rotation? Is this a part of a natural weather cycle that exists outside of the climate’s temperature? B) The sun’s slightly weaker output in the last 8-12 years may have more of a temperature effect on the winter months than on the summer months, when any greenhouse effect is most pronounced. Nuance to this: Not much. A direct localized energy budget. Point for this: One of the problems with a lot of these climate change calculations is that they look at things in aggregate that may not be useful as an aggregate. Aggregating yearly numbers may be less helpful than season numbers. Yes, overall, the yearly average is going up, but what, for instance, is the January-March temperature trend compared to the April - June? What if we cut the northern hemisphere from the southern? Point against this: It may be missing the forest for the trees, as activists would likely say. What else can you think of? Note that both of these don’t say warming isn’t happening, it’s looking for a deeper understanding of the climate system, which we do need. ---
**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, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/136 "2014-01-27T16:23:18Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The colder winters is indeed a real problem for climate models, as they predict they exact opposite, based on the physics of CO2 forced warming, and assumptions about feedbacks from CO2 forced warming. And that is the issue you keep avoiding. Complete bullshit as usual. The differentiation between summer and winter warming is latitude-dependent and is primarily significant in the Arctic where models predict greater winter warming as a side effect of the same albedo feedbacks that drive accelerated warming there throughout the year. And indeed [observations completely bear this out](http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130327/srep01556/full/srep01556.html): > [@](#): > > One of the key features of amplified Arctic warming concerns **Arctic winter warming (AWW), which exceeds summer warming by at least a factor of 4**. Here we use observation-driven reanalyses and state-of-the-art climate models in a variety of standardised climate change simulations to show that AWW is strongly linked to winter sea ice retreat … Arctic summer warming is surprisingly modest … This can also be clearly seen in the GISS temperature maps linked before, using any meaningful timeframe. You can even see it – though it’s a little harder to see – in the crap that you linked to, which basically constructs a trend using a spectacularly anomalous time period that doesn’t represent the trend. It’s called looking at evidence and interpreting it honestly, a rather key tenet of science. You also appear not to understand the Cohen paper at all. Not even remotely. Cohen et al. note that for the previous two decades (that would be 1991 to 2011, incidentally) several geographical areas have shown winter cooling trends contrary to the larger spatial and temporal trends, and he posits that there may be systemic feedbacks responsible rather than just random variability. Cohen has a special interest in seasonal forecasting and is suggesting potential areas for improvement of such, but even if he’s right, these are feedbacks that drive the Arctic Oscillation and the AMO so they ultimately have no net effect on the energy budget and long-term global temperature. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The thing about science is, you can state your opinion all you want, it won’t change the facts. But if you actually study the facts, you might change your opinion. I agree. And if you have any interest at all in facts, you might stop claiming that water vapor is not a feedback, you might stop posting trends extrapolated from anomalous snippets that show the opposite of the actual trends, you might stop making false claims about climate models and winter temperature predictions, and you might even consider ceasing to misinterpret scientific papers. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/137 "2014-01-27T16:46:30Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > FX makes a good point: The reason that the global averages have flattened out may have a lot to do with the winters getting colder. Instead of attacking this view of the data, maybe you should discuss the potential causes: Not really, and that was taken care of in the many cites already made. In essence, as Latif and many others reported in the past “slowdowns” were expected **and he is refusing to even acknowledge that**. > [@Farin](#): > > A) Climate Change may be pushing the cold air out of the arctic and sending more cold air our way. Nuance to this: It’ll disappear over time as the cold air becomes warmer. Points for it: Explains why masses of cold air are descending on the northern hemisphere more vigorously now then they have in the last two decades. Points against it: Previous to 1980, there was a lot of cold air, but no one recording how air masses were moving in the arctic. More study needed: Is Antarctica displaying the same trends in the summer/winter rotation? Is this a part of a natural weather cycle that exists outside of the climate’s temperature? Actually instrumental records are available for the arctic since the 1950’s and a lot comes thanks to the cold war (Interestingly the original task for Plass was to identify the background heat signal in the atmosphere at different altitudes, running into the discovery of the real ways CO2 captured and emitted heat.) Even Judith Curry (cited early) explained the way Antarctica is gaining ice inland and how the Antarctic weather behaves. > [@Farin](#): > > B) The sun’s slightly weaker output in the last 8-12 years may have more of a temperature effect on the winter months than on the summer months, when any greenhouse effect is most pronounced. Nuance to this: Not much. A direct localized energy budget. Point for this: One of the problems with a lot of these climate change calculations is that they look at things in aggregate that may not be useful as an aggregate. Aggregating yearly numbers may be less helpful than season numbers. Yes, overall, the yearly average is going up, but what, for instance, is the January-March temperature trend compared to the April - June? What if we cut the northern hemisphere from the southern? Point against this: It may be missing the forest for the trees, as activists would likely say. Not as Schneider explained, and this was also posted early: [http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm](http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm) > [@](#): > > What other natural experiments might we have to test climate sensitivity? My favorite is one that happens every year – the seasons. Winter predictably follows summer, being some fifteen degrees colder in the Northern Hemisphere and five degrees colder than summer in the Southern Hemisphere. The reason the Southern Hemisphere has a smaller seasonal cycle is because it has much more ocean than land, and water has a higher heat retaining capacity than land or air. Since a season is not long enough for the planet to reach an equilibrium temperature change, therefore, the more land dominated Northern Hemisphere has lower heat capacity and thus a larger seasonal cycle of surface temperature. How well do the climate models do in reproducing this change? The answer is “extraordinarily well.” Although what the absolute temperatures models may simulate can be off by as much as five or six degrees in some regions of the world for some seasons, the models’ capacity to reproduce the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of surface air temperatures, by and large, is quite good. (It is less good for other variables, however, particularly hydrological systems.) Now, if we were making a factor of ten error by either overestimating or underestimating the sensitivity of the climate to radiative forcing, it would be difficult for the models to reproduce the different seasonal cycle surface temperature amplitudes over land and oceans as well as they do. This is another piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that current estimate of climate sensitivity is not off by a factor of ten, as some “contrarians” assert. > [@Farin](#): > > What else can you think of? > > Note that both of these don’t say warming isn’t happening, it’s looking for a deeper understanding of the climate system, which we do need. You still have to note that there is a lot that is being willfully ignored by one side here. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/138 "2014-01-27T17:03:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Interestingly the original task for Plass was to identify the background heat signal in the atmosphere at different altitudes, running into the discovery of the real ways CO2 captured and emitted heat. Just forgot more background there, Plass was originally involved in the cold war because he was part of the team looking to identify the background heath radiation at different levels in the atmosphere for the purpose of properly setting up the new heat seeking missiles of then. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere as he had all that data that was originally obtained for weapon’s research. The funny thing to me has been that many contrarians are also very conservative and I think they forget or are not aware that the modern understanding of the issue (and Gore did not invent this) came about thanks to shooting down commie planes. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/139 "2014-01-27T17:31:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not really, and that was taken care of in the many cites already made. In essence, as Latif and many others reported in the past “slowdowns” were expected **and he is refusing to even acknowledge that**. Why is it so important that he acknowledge that? Even if he did, it wouldn’t change the fact that “slowdowns” as a function are poorly understood. His review of the data might give a jumping off point for further understanding. His current line of reasoning is operating almost entirely in the realm that is poorly understood. Sure, he extrapolates that to the models they are using being flawed, but we all know that those aren’t perfect - and I’d be surprised if you found anyone using them claiming that they are. Is our flattening increase due to natural variations? Less cow farts? Aliens? We have indications that the slow down might be going into the ocean, but ocean temperature trends are woefully short term. Everything before ~1960 is almost exclusively surface temperature and the subsurface data is extrapolated via ratios derived from the following 60 years. Even the studies that look at this show a huge (upto 1 C in periods) error margin on this early data set. As a result, we have a reliable record of 60 years for down to 750 meters, about 35 years down to 1500 meters and 10 years down to 2000 meters. Yes, the ocean has warmed, but it’s hard for us to say (although that hasn’t stopped some people from saying so) that it’s warmed way faster the last decade(s) when we don’t even have a century of records under our belts. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually instrumental records are available for the arctic since the 1950’s and a lot comes thanks to the cold war (Interestingly the original task for Plass was to identify the background heat signal in the atmosphere at different altitudes, running into the discovery of the real ways CO2 captured and emitted heat.) Temperature records are not air mass records. We don’t have historical records of air mass movements. Thus, hot air moving into the Arctic and displacing cold air that hits the US and such we can’t prove as the reason winters were colder in the US 40-50 years ago. We can extrapolate based on what we do have, but with the climate changing, we can’t rely on the data and results from our modern, accurate records to reliably predict the past or tell us what was happening back then. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Even Judith Curry (cited early) explained the way Antarctica is gaining ice inland and how the Antarctic weather behaves. > > Not as Schneider explained, and this was also posted early: > > [Statement of Stephen Schneider, Climate Change, July 10, 1997](http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm) Which, once again, doesn’t talk about how air masses move off of the Antarctic. I don’t care if the cold air mass freezes the south pacific ocean instead of Tasmania, just whether a similar weather pattern is happening. I get that there is a significant difference in how these are transmitted (e.g. water sinks a lot more heat than land, leading to the air mass being warmer once it moves off Antarctica), but that doesn’t mean we can’t look 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 27, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/140 "2014-01-27T17:34:12Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > FX makes a good point: The reason that the global averages have flattened out may have a lot to do with the winters getting colder. **Instead of attacking this view of the data, maybe you should discuss the potential causes** : But that would mean they have to look at the data, and admit something unexpected is happening. If they had the presence of mind to be scientific and to observe and think, they would already know this. So there is nothing that will get through to that sort of mind, closed and extreme. > [@Farin](#): > > The scientific _data_ is there for all to see. And all of the data we have points to a long term warming trend of 0.2 - 0.3 C per decade. This has increased between 1/10th and 1/3rd in the last two decades. > > Some people object to the interpretation that it’s all humanity’s fault. Let them offer up evidence and different views of the data. Pretending that there is a monopoly on how the data is to be interpreted is incredibly dangerous and harkens back to the attempts of the Catholic Church to tell scientists what conclusion to reach on on their research. Dismissing this stuff out of hand is what empowers those that are claiming that we need to repeal the EPA and other such reckless ideas. It’s probably much more than that, but this exceeds the scope of the topic, which seems to be an actual argument over the measurements themselves. So that what we observe is wrong, that all the data is wrong, and that the warming is actually much greater than we can measure, and that there not only has been no pause, warming has actually increased. Obviously a dozen and a half other issues get slapped into any and all topics about climate, but that doesn’t change the OP in the least. The claim is that due to shortcomings in the GISS data collection, the satellite data should be grafted in somehow, and that would change the entire global mean, no small claim to make. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=8)