# Global warming v weather shift **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050 "2012-08-20T13:14:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/61 "2012-08-22T20:31:00Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you may be mistakenly conflating “increase in fossil fuel use” with “increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations”. > > As **GIGObuster** pointed out, the IPCC models **don’t** assume “exponential increases in use of fossil fuels out into the indefinite future”. Rather, they consider various more realistic scenarios for future fossil-fuel use. > > The thing is that exponential growth in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations could continue (and even accelerate) for at least several more decades **even as fossil fuel use itself is flattening out or decreasing**. Some of the potential factors include: > > **More emissions-intensive fuels.** As we run out of comparatively easy and cheap supplies of fossil fuels, we are turning to extracting them from sources that are harder to get to and harder to process, like tar sands. This means that we’re creating more emissions per unit of energy obtained. So it’s possible for greenhouse-gas emissions to be going **up** even while the amount of fossil-fuel energy we use is going **down**. > > **Changes in carbon cycle feedbacks.** All current estimates of CO2 concentrations are based on assumptions about how fast the global environment is able to absorb excess CO2. But the “absorbing power” of natural carbon sinks is predicted to change in a variety of possible ways as the atmosphere gets more carbon-heavy. As I said before, absorbing less emissions is equivalent to generating more emissions, so it’s also possible for greenhouse-gas **concentrations** to be going up even while **emissions** are going down. > > **Population-driven changes in land use.** We have to consider not only natural changes in the absorbing power of carbon sinks but also direct human impacts on them. As global population grows and local climates change in response to warming, continuing deforestation and agriculture will affect greenhouse-gas emissions and absorption independently of fossil-fuel use rates. > So in short: It’s not realistic just to shrug and say _“eh, we’re inevitably going to cut down on fossil fuel use in the future, so the overall warming won’t be that big a deal.”_ In the meantime, particularly the near- and medium-term meantime, the increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations could still produce significant climate consequences, including superlinear temperature increases over the 21st century. Another big one that you left out is methane release from permafrost and methane hydrates, which is already beginning [based on reports](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html); methane is such a powerful greenhouse gas (the GWP was recently [increased to 105](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only) over a decadal time frame) that even a few million tons a year would be significant, much less the possibility of a large-scale release in the gigaton range (1 GT methane ~ 100 GT CO2 ~ 3x annual human emissions). Also, natural gas is often touted as a “clean” fuel with lower emissions than coal or oil but [when leaks are factored in](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/09/315845/natural-gas-switching-from-coal-to-gas-increases-warming-for-decades/), it is likely worse than either, again due to methane’s GWP. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/62 "2012-08-23T16:56:20Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you may be mistakenly conflating “increase in fossil fuel use” with “increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations”. > > As **GIGObuster** pointed out, the IPCC models **don’t** assume “exponential increases in use of fossil fuels out into the indefinite future”. Rather, they consider various more realistic scenarios for future fossil-fuel use. > > The thing is that exponential growth in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations could continue (and even accelerate) for at least several more decades **even as fossil fuel use itself is flattening out or decreasing**. Some of the potential factors include: > > **More emissions-intensive fuels.** As we run out of comparatively easy and cheap supplies of fossil fuels, we are turning to extracting them from sources that are harder to get to and harder to process, like tar sands. This means that we’re creating more emissions per unit of energy obtained. So it’s possible for greenhouse-gas emissions to be going **up** even while the amount of fossil-fuel energy we use is going **down**. > > **Changes in carbon cycle feedbacks.** All current estimates of CO2 concentrations are based on assumptions about how fast the global environment is able to absorb excess CO2. But the “absorbing power” of natural carbon sinks is predicted to change in a variety of possible ways as the atmosphere gets more carbon-heavy. As I said before, absorbing less emissions is equivalent to generating more emissions, so it’s also possible for greenhouse-gas **concentrations** to be going up even while **emissions** are going down. > > **Population-driven changes in land use.** We have to consider not only natural changes in the absorbing power of carbon sinks but also direct human impacts on them. As global population grows and local climates change in response to warming, continuing deforestation and agriculture will affect greenhouse-gas emissions and absorption independently of fossil-fuel use rates. > So in short: It’s not realistic just to shrug and say _“eh, we’re inevitably going to cut down on fossil fuel use in the future, so the overall warming won’t be that big a deal.”_ In the meantime, particularly the near- and medium-term meantime, the increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations could still produce significant climate consequences, including superlinear temperature increases over the 21st century. As I already pointed out: [ul] [li]The actual measured warning rate for the last 30 years indicate a warming of 1.2 to 1.4 degrees centigrade from now until 2100.[/li][li]Basic climate science say we need an \*\*exponential \*\*increase in greenhouse gases to support a **linear** increase in temperature.[/li][/ul] Anything less than an exponential increase in greenhouse gases would produce less than the 1.2-1.4 warming. I’m talking about actual measurements, not models. Everything you’ve talked are just hypotheses without presenting a shred of proof. You don’t even show that tar sands produce more greenhouse gases per BTU than coal and you ignore the fact that the major new energy source is natural gas produced by fracking, which produces less GHGs per BTU than coal. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/63 "2012-08-23T18:03:46Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > As I already pointed out: > > [ul] > [li]The actual measured warning rate for the last 30 years indicate a warming of 1.2 to 1.4 degrees centigrade from now until 2100.[/li][li]Basic climate science say we need an \*\*exponential \*\*increase in greenhouse gases to support a **linear** increase in temperature.[/li][/ul] > > Anything less than an exponential increase in greenhouse gases would produce less than the 1.2-1.4 warming. I’m talking about actual measurements, not models. No, actually you **are** talking about models. There’s **no** way to estimate warming rates from now until 2100 without using climate models. Because, unfortunately, we don’t have any actual measurements of temperature or atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations from the period between now and 2100. (If it weren’t for this pesky time machine acting up I would have solved that problem by now, but I’m still waiting on parts. Sorry about that, folks.) What you seem to be arguing for is taking “the actual measured warming rate for the last 30 years” and extrapolating that to the next 80 years. _Surprise: that right there, that assumption that we can extrapolate directly from recent conditions to future conditions, is a climate model._ A very simple model, admittedly, but a model nonetheless. And, according to the research presented in the IPCC reports, not the most likely model, based on current knowledge about the physics of the carbon cycle. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Everything you’ve talked are just hypotheses without presenting a shred of proof. Yup, and nowhere have I claimed otherwise. There is no proof available for **any** prediction about specific **future** climate conditions (that damn time machine again). But the potential greenhouse-gas-boosting factors that I (and **Michael63129** ) have mentioned are not only physically possible but, according to the current state of climate science, significantly likely. That certainly doesn’t prove that warming rates in the near future **will** be greater than linear, but it’s one of the reasons that we can’t just blithely assume that they **won’t** be greater than linear. > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You don’t even show that tar sands produce more greenhouse gases per BTU than coal I didn’t claim that they do. They do, however, produce more greenhouse gases per BTU than other forms of oil extraction which they are predicted to replace as more easily accessible petroleum sources become exhausted. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/64 "2012-08-24T04:43:05Z")
I sure don’t understand the climate science. This stuff makes my brain hurt. But in my reading, I noticed a striking similarity to another question I recently researched. I knew some intelligent and apparently rational people who disbelieved Evolution. I had taken it on faith, so I started out reading Darwin, and took it from there, reading both sides of the debate. A striking thing is that while many of those who adhere to NeoDarwinist dogma have differences of opinion, they agree on the vast majority of facts and fundamentals. On the other hand, those who criticize it rarely do so in any significantly technical way without severely contradicting the other critics. I saw the same for scientists who criticize the IPCC concensus. There’s a great big tent, with most climate scientists inside it, and a lot of very little tents with only a few critics each, ouside. The critics can’t agree on much of any technical substance, except perhaps disputing the concensus view of the historical record. (Even there, they dispute it for different and often conflicting reasons.) The most consistent criticism of the concensus is that detailed climate models are horribly complex and somewhat contradictory, so we shouldn’t take them too seriously. I agree that we shouldn’t take the specifics too seriously, but we should pay attention to the general trend, about which they tend to agree. And then there’s the risk analysis viewpoint. If we take serious countermeasures, they may be very costly to our fragile economy, which costs might be wasted. However, if the risks are real, the cost of ignoring them are catastrophic. Furthermore, these are not a few chicken-littles who are crying, they’re the most significant scientific organizations in the world. BTW, I’m a fiscal conservative and would really like to avoid any further governmental damage to the economy. But the results of failing to act in response to a risk of impending doom are well documented in history. I don’t want to wind up in that section of the book. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/65 "2012-08-24T22:22:12Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I sure don’t understand the climate science. This stuff makes my brain hurt. But in my reading, I noticed a striking similarity to another question I recently researched. > > I knew some intelligent and apparently rational people who disbelieved Evolution. I had taken it on faith, so I started out reading Darwin, and took it from there, reading both sides of the debate. A striking thing is that while many of those who adhere to NeoDarwinist dogma have differences of opinion, they agree on the vast majority of facts and fundamentals. On the other hand, those who criticize it rarely do so in any significantly technical way without severely contradicting the other critics. > > I saw the same for scientists who criticize the IPCC concensus. There’s a great big tent, with most climate scientists inside it, and a lot of very little tents with only a few critics each, ouside. The critics can’t agree on much of any technical substance, except perhaps disputing the concensus view of the historical record. (Even there, they dispute it for different and often conflicting reasons.) > > The most consistent criticism of the concensus is that detailed climate models are horribly complex and somewhat contradictory, so we shouldn’t take them too seriously. I agree that we shouldn’t take the specifics too seriously, but we should pay attention to the general trend, about which they tend to agree. > > And then there’s the risk analysis viewpoint. If we take serious countermeasures, they may be very costly to our fragile economy, which costs might be wasted. However, if the risks are real, the cost of ignoring them are catastrophic. Furthermore, these are not a few chicken-littles who are crying, they’re the most significant scientific organizations in the world. > > BTW, I’m a fiscal conservative and would really like to avoid any further governmental damage to the economy. But the results of failing to act in response to a risk of impending doom are well documented in history. I don’t want to wind up in that section of the book. One thing you need to understand is most of consensus is engineered. Climate models can get almost any result by tweaking a few parameters. The IPCC got the climate modelerers to sit down in a room and agree on a common set of parameters. The guys that don’t, are excluded for the IPCC reports and get their funding cut. > [@](#): > > The IPCC pressed the modelers to work out a consensus on a specific range of possibilities to be published in the 2007 report. The work was grueling. After a group had invested so much of their time, energy, and careers in their model, they could become reluctant to admit its shortcomings to outsiders and perhaps even to themselves. A frequent result was “prolonged and acrimonious fights in which model developers defended their models and engaged in serious conflicts with colleagues” over whose approach was best.(111) Yet in the end they found common ground, working out a few numbers that all agreed were plausible. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm) It is pretty easy to engineering a consensus when a lot of scientists are dependent for their livelihood on research funding. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/66 "2012-08-24T22:51:21Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > One thing you need to understand is most of consensus is engineered. Climate models can get almost any result by tweaking a few parameters. The IPCC got the climate modelerers to sit down in a room and agree on a common set of parameters. The guys that don’t, are excluded for the IPCC reports and get their funding cut. > > > [@](#): > > > > The IPCC pressed the modelers to work out a consensus on a specific range of possibilities to be published in the 2007 report. The work was grueling. After a group had invested so much of their time, energy, and careers in their model, they could become reluctant to admit its shortcomings to outsiders and perhaps even to themselves. A frequent result was “prolonged and acrimonious fights in which model developers defended their models and engaged in serious conflicts with colleagues” over whose approach was best.(111) Yet in the end they found common ground, working out a few numbers that all agreed were plausible. > > [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm) > > It is pretty easy to engineering a consensus when a lot of scientists are dependent for their livelihood on research funding. :dubious: Nowhere in your cite does it say that uncooperative researchers “got their funding cut”; that seems to be your conspiracy-theoretical addition to the description of the model development process. Nor does this description sound to me like a process of “engineering consensus”. Rather, it sounds like the successful functioning of scientific competition between different hypotheses, where proponents of different ideas have to engage in argument and conflict with each other about the relative merits of their positions. Adversarial debate exposes the shortcomings of the various arguments, and eventually the adversaries agree on common ground. Why should that be considered suspect, except by someone already determined to mistrust the IPCC? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/67 "2012-08-25T19:32:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: Nowhere in your cite does it say that uncooperative researchers “got their funding cut”; that seems to be your conspiracy-theoretical addition to the description of the model development process. > > Nor does this description sound to me like a process of “engineering consensus”. Rather, it sounds like the successful functioning of scientific competition between different hypotheses, where proponents of different ideas have to engage in argument and conflict with each other about the relative merits of their positions. Adversarial debate exposes the shortcomings of the various arguments, and eventually the adversaries agree on common ground. > > Why should that be considered suspect, except by someone already determined to mistrust the IPCC? And why would you trust them unless your are willing to accept the IPCC as gospel? When real science is conducted you don’t try to force all round pegs into square holes. All the results that pass peer review are published. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/68 "2012-08-25T19:57:04Z")
And that is still just a conspiracy theory. The reality is that most of the latest skeptical efforts to show that most of the scientists are wrong have been found to be hopelessly flawed. And yet they do find ways to be published, what it is ignored here is that publishing is not the end of it, then there is replication and other scientists checking the paper, and even there the common theme is just the spectacular failure coming from the part of the skeptics. > **[Just Put the Model Down, Roy](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/)** > > For the past few years, Roy Spencer has had a love affair, of sorts, with “simple climate models”.  After all, who needs some fancy-schmancy global circulation model (GCM) when you can boil down th… > [@](#): > > But even though he could have gotten exactly as good a fit to the data with low or high climate sensitivity, Roy Spencer claimed his modeling provided striking evidence for low sensitivity. The secret was that he didn’t use a normal optimization routine to get his “best fit” parameter values. Instead, he made up a bogus statistical technique that automagically allowed him to obtain a low sensitivity (about 1.3 °C for 2x CO2). Furthermore, by manipulating the starting value of his model temperature series, Spencer was able to make his model fit the first half of the data without much influence from the PDO. Finally, he used wildly unphysical model parameters, e.g., a 700 m ocean mixed layer. When you are fitting a model with 4-5 completely unconstrained parameters, after all, it’s hardly surprising if you can explain some data, but it would be foolhardy to take the fitted parameter values too seriously. > > To put it bluntly, I found that this work deserved to be rejected–with prejudice–from the scientific literature. > > It turned out that my book review became rather popular, and many of Roy’s blog readers were asking him for a response. He did respond…that he wasn’t going to respond. Why? Because he was working on a paper for the peer-reviewed literature, so he couldn’t be bothered to respond to a mere blog critique. I thought that was kind of funny, given that my review was about work Spencer had published in a book because he claimed the peer-review process had been corrupted, but hey, people have to prioritize. It’s been months, however, and Spencer still hasn’t gotten around to answering my initial criticisms. He has, ironically, had time to publish four more blog posts in which he used variants of the same simple climate model to support his claim that climate sensitivity is low. > [@](#): > > The Challenge > > I could go on with more nitpicks, but I’m going to stop here, because it should be clear that, once again, Spencer has made a big deal out of something that doesn’t have any evidentiary value. So if, as Spencer claims, “[t]he evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this,” then can we please move on? Can Roy PLEASE put his toy model down? > > I doubt he will, but maybe he will accept this challenge. Instead of complaining about how biased and awful the peer review system has gotten, he should (at the very least) get a statistician to work with him and do the modeling right, and then submit it for publication in a reputable journal. Personally, I don’t think the work can be saved, even then. However, I think the exercise of working with someone who knows how to properly make statistical inferences would be enlightening for Roy Spencer. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/69 "2012-08-25T20:06:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No, actually you **are** talking about models. There’s **no** way to estimate warming rates from now until 2100 without using climate models. Because, unfortunately, we don’t have any actual measurements of temperature or atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations from the period between now and 2100. (If it weren’t for this pesky time machine acting up I would have solved that problem by now, but I’m still waiting on parts. Sorry about that, folks.) > > What you seem to be arguing for is taking “the actual measured warming rate for the last 30 years” and extrapolating that to the next 80 years. _Surprise: that right there, that assumption that we can extrapolate directly from recent conditions to future conditions, is a climate model._ > > A very simple model, admittedly, but a model nonetheless. And, according to the research presented in the IPCC reports, not the most likely model, based on current knowledge about the physics of the carbon cycle. > > Yup, and nowhere have I claimed otherwise. There is no proof available for **any** prediction about specific **future** climate conditions (that damn time machine again). > > But the potential greenhouse-gas-boosting factors that I (and **Michael63129** ) have mentioned are not only physically possible but, according to the current state of climate science, significantly likely. That certainly doesn’t prove that warming rates in the near future **will** be greater than linear, but it’s one of the reasons that we can’t just blithely assume that they **won’t** be greater than linear. > I didn’t claim that they do. They do, however, produce more greenhouse gases per BTU than other forms of oil extraction which they are predicted to replace as more easily accessible petroleum sources become exhausted. What I constructed is not a model, it is the null hypotheses that things will continue doing what they are already doing. It is what every climate model is tested against. You can’t actually challenge it so you are reduced to Argument from authority without even mentioning an authority. You don’t even try to address the questionable economic underpinning of the scientific arguments. You haven’t produced a single cite to substantiate anything you’ve said. Until you do any intelligent person will ignore what you say. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/70 "2012-08-25T20:15:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is still just a conspiracy theory. > > The reality is that most of the latest skeptical efforts to show that most of the scientists are wrong have been found to be hopelessly flawed. And yet they do find ways to be published, what it is ignored here is that publishing is not the end of it, then there is replication and other scientists checking the paper, and even there the common theme is just the spectacular failure coming from the part of the skeptics. > > [Just Put the Model Down, Roy | Climate Asylum](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/) It is amazing how you keep using non-peered reviewed sources, while insisting that other people’s non-peered reviewed sources should be ignored. Of course since you don’t actually understand any science all you can do is cut and paste arguments you don’t understand. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/71 "2012-08-25T22:48:58Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > > And that is still just a conspiracy theory. > > > > The reality is that most of the latest skeptical efforts to show that most of the scientists are wrong have been found to be hopelessly flawed. And yet they do find ways to be published, what it is ignored here is that publishing is not the end of it, then there is replication and other scientists checking the paper, and even there the common theme is just the spectacular failure coming from the part of the skeptics. > > > > [Just Put the Model Down, Roy | Climate Asylum](http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/) > > It is amazing how you keep using non-peered reviewed sources, while insisting that other people’s non-peered reviewed sources should be ignored. Of course since you don’t actually understand any science all you can do is cut and paste arguments you don’t understand. That particular piece might be regarded as one element in Spencer’s own peer review process. Since he publishes his work with little or no community peer review, the peer review process must take place out in the wide open. Like this. If every peer review document must be itself reviewed by another peer, ad infinitum, either nothing would ever get published or the noise level would reach the point that extracting real information would become nigh impossible. This is why scientific research is a “conspiracy”. Scientists and researchers must work together to validate each others’ work. Publishing with no review as Dr. Spencer does, allowing Cato, National Review, et al to enthusiastically wave the material around at the vast ignorati, is really nothing more than nihilistically politicizing science. ---
**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:** [August 25, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/72 "2012-08-25T23:18:33Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > It is amazing how you keep using non-peered reviewed sources, while insisting that other people’s non-peered reviewed sources should be ignored. Of course since you don’t actually understand any science all you can do is cut and paste arguments you don’t understand. Meh, that was just to test you, it is you who does not understand, the previous post was the early going of Spenser in the climate sensibility issue in his book, if you were indeed interested in the science you would had know already that Spencer \*\*did \*\*publish and then the mega fail took place: > [@](#): > > What made this paper so fatally flawed and toxic? John Abraham gives us more details - > > > [@](#): > > > > It is remarkable that an Editor-in-Chief has stepped down from his role at a journal because of the publication of a flawed paper. This significant event reflects on the significance of the flaws in the paper and the review process. It is commendable that Wolfgang Wagner has reacted responsibly to the situation. > > > > ``` > > Wolfgang Wagner’s resignation was in response to the publication of a deeply flawed paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell. Dr. Spencer and his colleagues have a long history of minimizing the effects of human-caused climate change; they also have a long history of making serious technical errors. This latest paper is only one in a decade-long track record of errors that have forced Dr. Spencer to revise his work as the errors are brought to light. The Spencer group is well known in the scientific community for publishing high-profile papers that initially dispute global warming and only later are found to be faulty. > > > > This latest article reportedly showed that the climate is not as sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases. It also called into question the cause-and-effect relationship between clouds and climate change. Wolfgang’s resignation was based on the quality of the review the paper received and the obvious technical errors which the paper contained. Additionally, the Editor protested the press release which accompanied the paper. That press release, which was titled “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global alarmism”, received an incredible amount of attention from various news organizations such as FOX News. > > > > What are some of the errors? > > > > There are a number of technical errors, only some of which are listed here: > > > > *The heat capacity of the climate in the Spencer/Braswell paper was too small. > > *The Spencer/Braswell paper did not recognize that climate models which perform best are those that simulate El Nino cycles most accurately > > *Spencer/Braswell treated ocean heating as random events, which they are not. > > *Spencer/Braswell only showed models which supported their assertion. They did not show models which disagreed with their results > > *Spencer/Braswell made an error on the causal relationship between climate change and clouds. > > > > ``` > [@](#): > > Michael Ashley had this pattern prescientily nailed when the paper first appeared: > > ``` > There are very few articles published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that challenge the consensus that human-induced climate change is real and significant. > > None have stood the test of time. > > A new article by Spencer & Braswell is following the common trajectory of many such papers: > > * The article is published in a non-mainstream journal, following inadequate peer-review. > * Press releases from the authors exaggerate/distort the contents of the article to inflate its significance and increase the attention given to it. > * News of the article spreads like wild-fire around the blogosphere. > * Some media outlets take the press release and exaggerate it further still, so that the information that finally reaches the public has almost no relation to the original article. > * Within days, experts in the field show that the original article is fatally flawed; but by now the damage is done. > * For years into the future, the article is quoted by deniers of human-induced climate change as evidence that the science is uncertain. > > ``` ---
**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:** [August 25, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/73 "2012-08-25T23:25:14Z")
BTW among the scientists that did find the flaws was Dr. John P. Abraham, Associate Professor of thermal and fluid Sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, Minnesota. His area of research includes thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, numerical simulation, and energy. I would think that guys like him do understand the issue better than a blogessor or Spencer. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/74 "2012-08-26T00:34:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, that was just to test you, it is you who does not understand, the previous post was the early going of Spenser in the climate sensibility issue in his book, if you were indeed interested in the science you would had know already that Spencer \*\*did \*\*publish and then the mega fail took place: All you are doing is showing that you are busy refuting strawman arguments that no one is making. Nobody in this thread has mentioned Spencer except you. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/75 "2012-08-26T00:37:55Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Speaking as one of those others… I’ve been reading these debates for a while now, and find your style far (FAR!) more persuasive than those you rebut. You have solid facts, precisely marshaled, cogent and to the point. And you don’t engage in fallacies; you engage with facts. > > I might wish that _all_ debates here rely more on print cites than on YouTube and video cites. I’m willing to read a (short) paper on a technical issue, but I’m very reluctant to watch a video lecture. I can get a lot more information, a lot faster, in print than by listening. (Others may feel differently.) I can see how people think that, but I’ve seen **GIGOBuster** debate with actual scientists on the boards and he is basically revealed to be a paper tiger. He spam posts tons of cites. Some of them are from reputable sources and should be considered reasonable, but a lot of them come from alarmist websites. **GIGOBuster** actually hurts the cause because he is a global warming alarmist. Alarmists believe, beyond any claims ever made by science, that global warming will basically cause an apocalypse. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause any sort of near-term (meaning within the next few hundred years) apocalypse. [Factually speaking Earth’s apocalypse for all life will eventually be caused by the ever-increasing output of heat from the sun, which scientists project will cause the Earth’s oceans to boil off around a billion years from now creating an environment incompatible with life.] Further, people repeat claims like “in the past the Sun was dimmer”, but during the Pleistocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum global temperatures were much warmer than they are now, and global CO2 concentrations spiked to as high as 2000 PPM, vastly higher than today. Life thrived on that world, and that world could easily have supported human life. The problem with even talking to alarmists, is if you do not buy into their alarmist hysteria you immediately get attacked as a “denier.” Unfortunately on these boards, everyone is hyper sensitive to the possibility that an evil Koch-sponsored denier is spreading anti-scientific falsehoods. But the truth is this: Science projects warming that will cause many problems for mankind, but even the worst projections of reputable science do not project anything that would be apocalyptic. That’s all that people who refute some of **GIGOBuster** ’s more outrageous claims in the past are trying to say. Most of us are saying, “we agree AGW is a serious problem and we need to do everything we can to curtail it long term, but let’s not make false claims and exaggerations.” Those exaggerations are easy to latch on to by people who **are** actual anti-science and who really believe AGW is a liberal conspiracy theory. But just ask yourself these questions, and then research for yourself the answers: 1. What level of global temperature increase would be needed to have 65 F temperature in the arctic? 2. What level of global temperature increase do reputable scientists predict? 3. What level of CO2 concentration was associated with 65 F arctic temperatures during the Pleistocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? 4. What is our current CO2 atmospheric concentration and what is its expected trajectory? 5. Was life on earth possible with arctic temperatures of 65 F? I want you to look for your own answers, but I’ll give some of mine. Global temperatures would have to increase far beyond any projections for the poles to be so warm. CO2 concentrations sometimes as much as four times the total we have right now were present, and life thrived in this environment. This is where you start to get angry alarmists at you, because they think by noting “life thrived in this environment” I’m saying “global warming is great and will be no big deal at all.” That is not what I’m saying, life is not synonymous with “extant human life and civilizations.” As has been mentioned our societies have developed around the climate seen over the past 5000 years and most especially the last 200-300 years. We are disproportionately living next to the oceans in human society for various historical reasons. We are disproportionately, as a species, going to be affected by the loss of traditionally arable lands and the rising sea levels. These will have destructive and catastrophic effects on human society. But “catastrophic for human society” is not the same as “Armageddon that Turns Earth into Venus.” The science does not support anyone who thinks Earth is turning into Venus and you should be skeptical of anyone who associates with people who think that why (by linking to alarmist websites, for example.) My position, and the one of most rational people on this issue, is one of restraint and accuracy. You can be all for reducing our carbon footprint and working to find as many adaptations as possible to the reality of global climate change (which is going to happen regardless of the reduction we make in carbon footprint, we can work long term to make sure humans don’t release so much carbon in the future but we’re essentially on a train that doesn’t stop anytime soon right now and we need to recognize that reality as well), without having to resort to alarmist style doomsaying. ---
**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:** [August 26, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/76 "2012-08-26T00:43:32Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > All you are doing is showing that you are busy refuting strawman arguments that no one is making. Nobody in this thread has mentioned Spencer except you. Spenser is the closest one related to the climate sensibility issue, and the point stands, yin reality you have not much knowledge on what is going on. There is no need to be an expert on the issue, only to be aware of what is going on in the scientific community. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/77 "2012-08-26T00:46:01Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Further, people repeat claims like “in the past the Sun was dimmer”, but during the Pleistocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum global temperatures were much warmer than they are now, and global CO2 concentrations spiked to as high as 2000 PPM, vastly higher than today. Life thrived on that world, and that world could easily have supported human life. Just the small problem of relocating most of the world’s major cities and agricultural regions. Other than that, no problem at all! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/78 "2012-08-26T00:47:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you may be mistakenly conflating “increase in fossil fuel use” with “increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations”. > > As **GIGObuster** pointed out, the IPCC models **don’t** assume “exponential increases in use of fossil fuels out into the indefinite future”. Rather, they consider various more realistic scenarios for future fossil-fuel use. Something to note is the IPCC is probably wrong about their economics vis-a-vis fossil fuels. Before some of the recent large scale oil and natural gas discoveries ExxonMobil released a report stating they projected fossil fuels would still constitute a majority of the world’s energy supply by 2070. So the hope that by the 2050s fossil fuels will be economically uncompetitive are probably “optimistic” (optimistic depending on your perspective.) Evidence suggests we’re finding more and more oil and gas and getting better and better at extracting it, and that we could probably keep running on the stuff for a lot longer than people thought even ten years ago. What this means is this is a scenario in which the externalities are such the government has to get involved. The government will need to intentionally make fossil fuels too expensive to use, to strictly regulate where they are burned and how, because we can’t just hope that economic reality drives fossil fuels into the dustbin of history. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/79 "2012-08-26T00:48:50Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Just the small problem of relocating most of the world’s major cities and agricultural regions. Other than that, no problem at all! And as I said: > [@](#): > > This is where you start to get angry alarmists at you, because they think by noting “life thrived in this environment” I’m saying “global warming is great and will be no big deal at all.” That is not what I’m saying, life is not synonymous with “extant human life and civilizations.” As has been mentioned our societies have developed around the climate seen over the past 5000 years and most especially the last 200-300 years. We are disproportionately living next to the oceans in human society for various historical reasons. We are disproportionately, as a species, going to be affected by the loss of traditionally arable lands and the rising sea levels. These will have destructive and catastrophic effects on human society. If you can’t bother to read my whole post, refrain from commenting on them in the future lest you be made to look foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050/80 "2012-08-26T00:51:42Z")
I assure, you, in the future this will not be a problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-v-weather-shift/632050.md?page=5)