# I'm sick of this Global Warming!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 121
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2401 "2014-04-19T03:00:17Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> It contains statements about global warming but no explicit definition.
The whole page is a definition of global warming.
> [@](#):
>
> Sorry, but it’s not my responsibility to sift through the page looking for a simple answer to a simple, reasonable yes or no question I asked you. And this is the last time I will ask:
>
> Are you saying that “global warming” means any increase in global surface temperatures caused by humans, regardless of the mechanism and regardless of the amount of the increase?
> Then why is it so difficult to provide a simple, explicit answer to my question? Please complete the sentence:
>
> “Global warming” is the claim that \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
According to the page, global warming is caused by human activity and nature, but various scientists argue that warming during the last few decades is attributed to the latter. More details can be found in both the first paragraph of the page I shared and the whole page.
> [@](#):
>
> So you are not saying that those who oppose warmers are keeping some issue vague or ambiguous?
Here’s what I said:
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t think “warmers” are trying to be vague. Rather, the issue is so complex no definitive conclusion can be made. Unfortunately, the same problem applies to those who oppose “warmers.” In short, no definitive conclusion can be made by both sides.
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2402 "2014-04-19T11:19:38Z")
> [@ralfy](#):
>
> The whole page is a definition of global warming.
No it is not. It contains statements related to global warming but not a definition.
> [@](#):
>
> According to the page, global warming is caused by human activity and nature, but various scientists argue that warming during the last few decades is attributed to the latter. More details can be found in both the first paragraph of the page I shared and the whole page.
Not a definition. It sounds like you might be saying that global warming means any increase in global surface temperatures regardless of the cause and regardless of the amount of warming. But when I asked you, you evaded my question.
Anyway, I asked you a few very simple, reasonable questions aimed at eliciting a definition of global warming and you evaded those questions. I have my own rules of debate and one rule is that I don’t engage with people who won’t answer reasonable questions so that I can understand their position.
I realize that you probably aren’t being intentionally dishonest; probably you are just too stupid to understand what it means to define “global warming” and why it’s a problem that warmers refuse to do so. It also seems you don’t understand the difference between (1) not being able to reach a definitive conclusion; and (2) keeping your position vague so as to dodge scrutiny.
Regardless, I have no interest in engaging with someone who won’t or can’t answer reasonable questions aimed at figuring out what his position is. So welcome to my ignore list.
Bye.
---
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2403 "2014-04-19T14:41:58Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> No it is not. It contains statements related to global warming but not a definition.
>
> Not a definition. It sounds like you might be saying that global warming means any increase in global surface temperatures regardless of the cause and regardless of the amount of warming. But when I asked you, you evaded my question.
>
> Anyway, I asked you a few very simple, reasonable questions aimed at eliciting a definition of global warming and you evaded those questions. I have my own rules of debate and one rule is that I don’t engage with people who won’t answer reasonable questions so that I can understand their position.
>
> I realize that you probably aren’t being intentionally dishonest; probably you are just too stupid to understand what it means to define “global warming” and why it’s a problem that warmers refuse to do so. It also seems you don’t understand the difference between (1) not being able to reach a definitive conclusion; and (2) keeping your position vague so as to dodge scrutiny.
>
> Regardless, I have no interest in engaging with someone who won’t or can’t answer reasonable questions aimed at figuring out what his position is. So welcome to my ignore list.
>
> Bye.
I answered your question very clearly: global warming is caused by nature and human activity, but scientists attribute warming during the last few decades to human activity.
The first link says the same thing in the first paragraph. The second paragraph onward describes that warming, etc. The last paragraph states how it is affected by human activity. That fulfills (1) and counters the claim that the page does not define global warming.
There are references found at the end of the page. That counters the claim that the definition is vague and not open to scrutiny.
More details on the matter can be found in the NAS final report:
[https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/)
---
### Author:  [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2404 "2014-04-19T15:37:20Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> No it is not. It contains statements related to global warming but not a definition.
True, but it simply\*\* will not matter\*\*. Truth, facts, logic and science aren’t the driving force when it comes to **GLOBAL WARMING**! – at least when it comes to internet and media discussions of “it”. “It” being the almost mythical dangerous looming menace, that can be blamed for almost anything, and "it"is coming soon, or “it’s” already happening, “it” will cost a fuckton of money to stop, and “it” threatens starvation for billions, “it” is invisible, but also your fault, “it” may be unstoppable already, and “it” is only denied by people who are evil and only care about money.
There is no need to define “it”, because only evil deniers would ask for a scientific definition, a believer already knows “it” is real, and dangerous, and anyone asking about “it” is up to no good. The believer knows that most scientist believe in “it”, and that’s better than the pope declaring “it” to be real. And you can’t really blame the believers, there masters and leaders don’t actiually ever define “it” in a scientific way, so how would they know? Hell, as I pointed out, even Wikipedia, which is dominated by “it”, doesn’t have a definition of the theory of global warming. And for good reason. Is it a theory? Some try and claim it’s not, but of course they are ignorant fuckheads. Don’t believe me? Watcj and become smart.
> [@](#):
>
> Global Warming – **Theory which states** that an increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere results in an additive effect on average global temperatures.
[NASA](http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL%20-%20Volume%20I%20Individual%20Files/Ch%208%20Glossary.pdf)
> [@](#):
>
> The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies **the theory of global warming** , explained the authors.
[NASA Earth Observatory - Newsroom](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449)
aug 20
> [@](#):
>
> Nor does it go against the grain of basic **global warming theory**.
[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html)
> [@](#):
>
> The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies **the theory of global warming** , explained the authors.
> **[NASA Earth Observatory - Newsroom](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/newsroom)**
>
> climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps
There are four links to NASA pages that show clearly, with no chance of evading, that **there is a theory**. The true fuckhead will still not believe it, much less define it, because they actually do not know. It’s not that it’s willful ignorance, it’s not evasion, they actually do not know.
The brainwashing and propaganda is so good, and most people so weak, **they actually believe** a description of a warming climate is exactly the same thing as a theory, and that is really frightening. That level of mass ignorance is actually sickening.
We are not talking about some esoteric or specialized scientific thing, which you would expect most people to be ignorant of, we are talking about something very publicized, very much in your face, all the time. Yet, when given the opportunity to state what it is, asked directly what the theory is, exactly what are you saying, we see the sort of ignorance everywhere that is obvious in this topic.
It’s most fucked up.
What the NASA pages, and most people are actually talking about is called **The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect**
> [@](#):
>
> The greenhouse effect is a natural process where naturally occurring gases (e.g. water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and sulphur hexafluoride) absorb energy and trap it in the atmosphere. This maintains the temperature in the biosphere within a range that is suited for life.
>
> Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through increased emissions of natural gases (e.g. carbon dioxide) from human activities and gases manufactured by humans (e.g. chlorofluorocarbons) means that the amount of energy being trapped in the atmosphere increases, enhancing the greenhouse effect.
>
> **The implications of an enhanced greenhouse effect are difficult to quantify** , but include a range of changes to the climate, such as the rainfall and temperature patterns, and average sea-level, which are causing widespread concern.
[http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/atm/1/issue/4/ataglance.php](http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/atm/1/issue/4/ataglance.php)
> [@](#):
>
> An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere results in more heat being retained and an overall warming of the Earth’s temperature. Although they make up a small percentage of atmospheric gases, changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases have a huge effect on the balance of natural processes.
>
> The core concern about climate change is human potential to alter the climate through activities that are a result of our way of life and how we treat the natural environment. There have been significant technological advances over the past 60 to 100 years that have offered humankind countless benefits and conveniences. These increases in human activity, however, have also led to an additional release of greenhouse gases that have placed stress on natural processes.
[http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389](http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389)
An increase in the greenhouse effect is actually something that has scientific predictions, based on the physics and assumptions about how the oceans and atmosphere will change, due to the **Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.**
Why don’t the merchants of fear talk about the predictions from the theory? Why don’t we see scientific study after study showing the warming is happening, i accordance with the theory? Why do we not see scientific evidence that supports the predictions of the theory?
Oh, now there’s a complicated bunch of shit right there. Why would anyone avoid that?
---
### Author:  [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2405 "2014-04-19T15:38:45Z")
> [@ralfy](#):
>
> I answered your question very clearly: global warming is caused by nature and human activity, but scientists attribute warming during the last few decades to human activity.
Oh how perfect the timing of that was.
---
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2406 "2014-04-19T16:20:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> True, but it simply\*\* will not matter\*\*. Truth, facts, logic and science aren’t the driving force when it comes to **GLOBAL WARMING**! – at least when it comes to internet and media discussions of “it”. “It” being the almost mythical dangerous looming menace, that can be blamed for almost anything, and "it"is coming soon, or “it’s” already happening, “it” will cost a fuckton of money to stop, and “it” threatens starvation for billions, “it” is invisible, but also your fault, “it” may be unstoppable already, and “it” is only denied by people who are evil and only care about money.
Actually, logic and science are the driving forces when it comes to studying global warming. Politics is what drives the opposite:
[http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years](http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years)
> **[How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/)**
>
> Here are just eight examples of where the IPCC missed predictions
The reason why this is taking place is that governments have the final say on the matter, and what they want to show should support the businesses that they work for and the citizens who vote for them. And as all three are heavily dependent on oil for economic activity, news like this should not be surprising:
> **[IPCC report summary censored by governments around the world](https://www.smh.com.au/world/ipcc-report-summary-censored-by-governments-around-the-world-20140414-zqugm.html)**
>
> Berlin: A major climate report presented to the world was censored by the very governments who requested it, frustrating and angering some of its lead authors.
> [@](#):
>
> There is no need to define “it”, because only evil deniers would ask for a scientific definition, a believer already knows “it” is real, and dangerous, and anyone asking about “it” is up to no good. The believer knows that most scientist believe in “it”, and that’s better than the pope declaring “it” to be real. And you can’t really blame the believers, there masters and leaders don’t actiually ever define “it” in a scientific way, so how would they know? Hell, as I pointed out, even Wikipedia, which is dominated by “it”, doesn’t have a definition of the theory of global warming. And for good reason. Is it a theory? Some try and claim it’s not, but of course they are ignorant fuckheads. Don’t believe me? Watcj and become smart. [NASA](http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL%20-%20Volume%20I%20Individual%20Files/Ch%208%20Glossary.pdf)
> [NASA Earth Observatory - Newsroom](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449)
> aug 20 [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.htmlhttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.htmlhttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449)
>
> There are four links to NASA pages that show clearly, with no chance of evading, that **there is a theory**. The true fuckhead will still not believe it, much less define it, because they actually do not know. It’s not that it’s willful ignorance, it’s not evasion, they actually do not know.
As reported by the same organization:
Causes:
> **[Causes - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/)**
>
> Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results
“Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree”
> **[Scientific Consensus - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/)**
>
> It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities
Also,
“NASA: Human Activity, Not Solar Activity, Drives Global Warming and Returning to 350 ppm Is Needed to Stop It”
[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/05/419064/nasa-human-activity-not-solar-activity-drives-global-warming-350-ppm/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/05/419064/nasa-human-activity-not-solar-activity-drives-global-warming-350-ppm/)
> [@](#):
>
> The brainwashing and propaganda is so good, and most people so weak, **they actually believe** a description of a warming climate is exactly the same thing as a theory, and that is really frightening. That level of mass ignorance is actually sickening.
Actually, one is part of the other.
I started with the definition because the thread refers to an article about the weather (which is not the same as climate) and that does not even refer to climate change.
> [@](#):
>
> We are not talking about some esoteric or specialized scientific thing, which you would expect most people to be ignorant of, we are talking about something very publicized, very much in your face, all the time. Yet, when given the opportunity to state what it is, asked directly what the theory is, exactly what are you saying, we see the sort of ignorance everywhere that is obvious in this topic.
>
> It’s most fucked up.
But as shown in the links above, even NASA has concluded on the matter. There are more organizations listed in the page on scientists.
> [@](#):
>
> What the NASA pages, and most people are actually talking about is called **The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect**
> [http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/atm/1/issue/4/ataglance.php](http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/atm/1/issue/4/ataglance.php)
> [http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389](http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389)
>
> An increase in the greenhouse effect is actually something that has scientific predictions, based on the physics and assumptions about how the oceans and atmosphere will change, due to the **Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.**
>
> Why don’t the merchants of fear talk about the predictions from the theory? Why don’t we see scientific study after study showing the warming is happening, i accordance with the theory? Why do we not see scientific evidence that supports the predictions of the theory?
>
> Oh, now there’s a complicated bunch of shit right there. Why would anyone avoid that?
For the first link, read the second paragraph and the second bullet point. It’s the same thing: global warming.
For the second link, read the whole section and not just one page:
> **[Climate Change in the UK Overseas Territories | JNCC Resource Hub](https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/d201d6dc-a411-4ee5-b2a8-b6fa754ebf71)**
>
> Climate change is a pressing issue for the entire global community and it is one that the United Kingdom's Overseas Territories (UKOTs) cannot afford to ignore.
>
> In 2008, JNCC launched a series of ou
See also
[http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4369](http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4369)
Again, global warming and human activity.
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2407 "2014-04-19T17:29:31Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> True, but it simply\*\* will not matter\*\*. Truth, facts, logic and science aren’t the driving force when it comes to **GLOBAL WARMING**! – at least when it comes to internet and media discussions of “it”. “It” being the almost mythical dangerous looming menace, that can be blamed for almost anything, and "it"is coming soon, or “it’s” already happening, “it” will cost a fuckton of money to stop, and “it” threatens starvation for billions, “it” is invisible, but also your fault, “it” may be unstoppable already, and “it” is only denied by people who are evil and only care about money.
>
> There is no need to define “it”, because only evil deniers would ask for a scientific definition, a believer already knows “it” is real, and dangerous, and anyone asking about “it” is up to no good. The believer knows that most scientist believe in “it”, and that’s better than the pope declaring “it” to be real. And you can’t really blame the believers, there masters and leaders don’t actiually ever define “it” in a scientific way, so how would they know? Hell, as I pointed out, even Wikipedia, which is dominated by “it”, doesn’t have a definition of the theory of global warming.
I agree 99% with this, my only issue is that most believers do deserve some blame in my opinion. Anyone with an iota of thinking ability would be able to understand that there needs to be a precise, rigorous definition of “global warming” and that the absence of such a definition is a big problem. Some believers are probably too stupid to understand this point, but most really should know better. They simply prefer self-deception and pretensions of moral superiority. Or they have too much pride to admit they’ve been had. And that’s selfish and evil.
---
### Author:  [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2408 "2014-04-19T18:52:19Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> I agree 99% with this, my only issue is that most believers do deserve some blame in my opinion.
I see blame as an emotional and moral issue, it isn’t scientific. Of course it’s easy to blame, judge and accuse, it’s goddamn human nature. Avoiding human nature, the tendency to use emotion rather than our minds to figure things out, is why science matters. Emotions don’t solve problems of scientific nature.
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> Anyone with an iota of thinking ability would be able to understand that there needs to be a precise, rigorous definition of “global warming” and that the absence of such a definition is a big problem.
You seem to be assuming the average person has an understanding of science, which usually isn’t true at all. Most people don’t even know what a scientific theory is, they think it has some connection to ordinary use of the word theory.
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> Some believers are probably too stupid to understand this point, but most really should know better. They simply prefer self-deception and pretensions of moral superiority. Or they have too much pride to admit they’ve been had. And that’s selfish and evil.
Again, that might all be true, but it doesn’t matter in regards to the science. That people are stupid, self deceiving, selfish and feel morally superior, or smarter than everyone else, is exactly why science is used rather than opinion and hubris.
OK in an ideal scientific world science would be the method we use.
---
### Author:  [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2409 "2014-04-19T19:23:25Z")
> [@ralfy](#):
>
> The whole page is a definition of global warming.
No, and it won’t matter how many times you claim it is. Which is the tragedy of the internet, facts just don’t matter. Anyone can just say anything, no need to let reality get in the way of things.
It’s why something fact based and impossible to refute is so difficult for a warmer to deal with.
[No global warming since 2002 GISS data](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1990&base2=2000&radius=250&pol=rob)
Now that is bad enough, but when the more complicated issues of trends and asymmetric seasonal changes is pointed out, the warmer just can’t cope. There sources have no pre-packaged answers. Because like we see here, the climate experts and bloggers so sure of themselves, simply ignore reality. It’s like their minds go blank, and they go back to doing what they were doing, and forget about it.
It’s that much of a body blow, it’s like they are stunned, then shake it off and pretend it isn’t happening.
How fucked up is that?
Plus, the Wattsupwitdat and other skeptic blogs also tend to ignore this. I suspect that the summer (NH warm season) warming trend is something they can’t handle as well.
---
### Author:  [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2410 "2014-04-19T19:27:28Z")
Oh damn, after I posted that I went and checked wattsup and what do I find?
**Holdren Is Wrong – Cold Winters Are Not Getting More Common**
> **[Holdren Is Wrong – Cold Winters Are Not Getting More Common • Watts Up With...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/18/holdren-is-wrong-cold-winters-are-not-getting-more-common/#more-107747)**
>
> By Paul Homewood As WUWT points out, John Holdren is one of many who have tried to link the cold winter in the USA this year to global warming. In his White House video in January, he had this to say: “A growing body of evidence suggests that the...
OK now it’s on.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2014, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2411 "2014-04-20T08:26:07Z")
David Horsey. :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2014, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2412 "2014-04-20T12:52:36Z")
> [@Little\_Pig](#):
>
> David Horsey. :rolleyes:
Probably what is most telling about that article is the cartoon. Of course anyone who believes in the Sacred (But Undefined) Theory of Global Warming is morally and intellectually superior to the sort of ignorant, bible-thumping rednecks who dare question “It.”
Anyway, it’s easy to look at events after the fact and explain how they are consistent with your Theory. The real challenge is to make predictions before events happen. And to say – in advance – what, if it happened, would mean that your hypothesis is wrong.
---
### Author:  [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2413 "2014-04-20T13:01:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> **Holdren Is Wrong – Cold Winters Are Not Getting More Common**
> [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/18/holdren-is-wrong-cold-winters-are-not-getting-more-common/#more-107747](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/18/holdren-is-wrong-cold-winters-are-not-getting-more-common/#more-107747)
So on one side we see claims that winters aren’t actually getting colder, prompted by countering the claim that global warming is CAUSING colder winters
> [@Little\_Pig](#):
>
> David Horsey. :rolleyes:
and of course the other side claiming colder winters are happening and it’s our fault.
OK that’s just fucked up. The skeptics are now countering the warmist claims, except the claim being dismissed by the skeptics is that the winters are getting colder. Which the warmist is claiming. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Because that is what I am seeing there. wtf?
[winter trend last 20 years](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) global mean change .04 C
[winter trend since 2002](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) global mean change - .14 C
That’s the global mean for Dec-Jan-Feb
The annual mean change since 2002 is - .01 C
So what to make of the claim?
> [@](#):
>
> Put very simply, here is what the predominant science says: **Average global temperatures have been rising in recent decades**.
> **[Ice storm paradox: It's colder because the Earth is warmer](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-ice-storm-paradox-20140212-story.html)**
>
> With the American South locked in a deep freeze, you can be sure that plenty of the folks suffering through the snow and ice storms are interpreting the big chill as more proof that global warming is a hoax.
[Annual global mean change 1995-2004](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1995&year2=2004&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) .20 C
Obviously going up, even with [the winter trend for most of the CONUS](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2004&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) going down
[2005-2014 winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2005&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) - .06 C with most of the US trending colder for winters
[The last decade annual trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2004&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) - .01 C
Obviously the last decade there was no rise in the global mean temperature, so the claim **Average global temperatures have been rising in recent decades** is bullshit. No way around it.
But then the wattsupwitdat is also bullshit. Goddamn, I have to bitchslap everybody sometimes.
---
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2414 "2014-04-20T15:47:12Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> I agree 99% with this, my only issue is that most believers do deserve some blame in my opinion. Anyone with an iota of thinking ability would be able to understand that there needs to be a precise, rigorous definition of “global warming” and that the absence of such a definition is a big problem. Some believers are probably too stupid to understand this point, but most really should know better. They simply prefer self-deception and pretensions of moral superiority. Or they have too much pride to admit they’ve been had. And that’s selfish and evil.
Multiple organizations mentioned in the list of science organizations have defined global warming very clearly. Besides the NASA definition, here’s the definition from the Royal Society:
[https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/](https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/)
and it’s the same: a slight increase in global temperature anomaly now driven by CO2 emissions.
That’s it.
---
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2415 "2014-04-20T16:01:36Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> No, and it won’t matter how many times you claim it is. Which is the tragedy of the internet, facts just don’t matter. Anyone can just say anything, no need to let reality get in the way of things.
No, the whole page is a definition of global warming, and you can keep claiming otherwise with no proof and it will not help you one bit.
Global warming refers to a slight increase in temperature anomaly globally, not a weather event in Atlanta.
According to the same NASA you referred to earlier, it has been primarily driven by human activity. The evidence was presented you earlier.
> [@](#):
>
> It’s why something fact based and impossible to refute is so difficult for a warmer to deal with.
> [No global warming since 2002 GISS data](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1990&base2=2000&radius=250&pol=rob)
“Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?”
> **[Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm)**
>
> \2007's dramatic cooling is driven by strong La Nina conditions which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature. It is also exacerbated by unusually low solar activity.\
> [@](#):
>
> Now that is bad enough, but when the more complicated issues of trends and asymmetric seasonal changes is pointed out, the warmer just can’t cope. There sources have no pre-packaged answers. Because like we see here, the climate experts and bloggers so sure of themselves, simply ignore reality. It’s like their minds go blank, and they go back to doing what they were doing, and forget about it.
> It’s that much of a body blow, it’s like they are stunned, then shake it off and pretend it isn’t happening.
>
> How fucked up is that?
>
> Plus, the Wattsupwitdat and other skeptic blogs also tend to ignore this. I suspect that the summer (NH warm season) warming trend is something they can’t handle as well.
Seasonal changes?
“What’s the Difference Between Weather and Climate?”
> **[NASA](https://www.nasa.gov)**
>
> NASA.gov brings you the latest news, images and videos from America's space agency, pioneering the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
---
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2416 "2014-04-20T16:05:18Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> Probably what is most telling about that article is the cartoon. Of course anyone who believes in the Sacred (But Undefined) Theory of Global Warming is morally and intellectually superior to the sort of ignorant, bible-thumping rednecks who dare question “It.”
>
> Anyway, it’s easy to look at events after the fact and explain how they are consistent with your Theory. The real challenge is to make predictions before events happen. And to say – in advance – what, if it happened, would mean that your hypothesis is wrong.
The theory and effects such as extreme weather (including cooling) are defined in various booklets and reports shared here by the NAS:
[https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/)
---
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2417 "2014-04-20T16:08:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> So on one side we see claims that winters aren’t actually getting colder, prompted by countering the claim that global warming is CAUSING colder winters
>
> and of course the other side claiming colder winters are happening and it’s our fault.
>
> OK that’s just fucked up. The skeptics are now countering the warmist claims, except the claim being dismissed by the skeptics is that the winters are getting colder. Which the warmist is claiming. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Because that is what I am seeing there. wtf?
>
> [winter trend last 20 years](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) global mean change .04 C
>
> [winter trend since 2002](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) global mean change - .14 C
>
> That’s the global mean for Dec-Jan-Feb
>
> The annual mean change since 2002 is - .01 C
>
> So what to make of the claim?
>
> [Ice storm paradox: It's colder because the Earth is warmer](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-ice-storm-paradox-20140212,0,7056061.story#ixzz2zQlCo8LK)
>
> [Annual global mean change 1995-2004](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1995&year2=2004&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) .20 C
> Obviously going up, even with [the winter trend for most of the CONUS](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2004&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) going down
>
> [2005-2014 winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2005&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) - .06 C with most of the US trending colder for winters
>
> [The last decade annual trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2004&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) - .01 C
>
> Obviously the last decade there was no rise in the global mean temperature, so the claim **Average global temperatures have been rising in recent decades** is bullshit. No way around it.
>
> But then the wattsupwitdat is also bullshit. Goddamn, I have to bitchslap everybody sometimes.
Actually, it has been rising for decades. Claims that show otherwise are based on not looking at trend lines, not including ocean heat content:
> **[RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/)**
>
> RealClimate: The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming. NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat...
etc. More important are observed positive feedbacks enumerated here:
[http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/](http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/)
---
### Author:  [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2014, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2418 "2014-04-21T21:38:05Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> No it is not. It contains statements related to global warming but not a definition.
This avoidance is getting old, hence boring in the extreme. Why? I suspect the usual human nature at work, but it’s not possible for ignorance to explain all of it.
> [@ralfy](#):
>
> I answered your question very clearly: global warming is caused by nature and human activity, but scientists attribute warming during the last few decades to human activity.
No, you posted links claiming the definition was there, but it’s not. You don’t even use the terminology, much less explain clearly what you mean.
I want to help you, I really do. So use the following terms and concepts when you discuss global warming, then you will seem educated. First off is **the greenhouse effect** , terribly named but we are stuck with it. then there is **The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect** , expected to lead to then Climate change, which is expected to be a rise in the global mean, which is called “global warming”, or anthropegenic global warming.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Greenhouse Effect \*\*
> Trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earths surface. Some of the heat flowing back toward space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and several other gases in the atmosphere and then reradiated back toward the Earths surface. [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html)
> [@](#):
>
> **The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect**
> An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere results in more heat being retained and an overall warming of the Earth’s temperature. [http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389](http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389)
> [@](#):
>
> The main contributors are changes to the carbon cycle that have led to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere in the last 200 years. **These include reduced CO2 removal and storage through deforestation; direct CO2 production from the burning of fossil fuels and CO2 released from cement production**.
>
> The increased release of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from burning fossil fuels and soil denitrification (particularly with the introduction of high nitrogen fertilizers) and intensive production of livestock such as cows and pigs which produce methane have also contributed to **the enhanced greenhouse effect**. [http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/indicators/greenhouse\_effect.jsp](http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/indicators/greenhouse_effect.jsp)
> [@](#):
>
> **greenhouse effect**. The trapping and build-up of heat in the lower atmosphere near a planet’s surface. Some of the heat flowing back towards space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and other gases in the atmosphere. \*\*If the atmospheric concentration of these gases rises, then theory predicts that the average temperature of the lower atmosphere will gradually increase. \*\*The greenhouse effect in part explains the temperature differences of Mars, Venus and Earth.
>
> **global warming**. An increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s surface. Global warming is one of the consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect and will cause worldwide changes to climate patterns.
> [http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/nova/016/016glo.html#greenhouse](http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/nova/016/016glo.html#greenhouse) effect
In essence AGW means “an increase in the heat balance of the earth caused by an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human causes”.
“Anthropogenic climate change” refers to all the changes to climate from human beings. “Anthropogenic global warming” means the warming of the surface temperatures of the earth from **The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect**. They are not the same thing.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Anthropogenic \*\*
> Made by people or resulting from human activities. Usually used in the context of emissions that are produced as a result of human activities.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Climate Change \*\*
> Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, **climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that occur over several decades or longer**.
[http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Climate\_change](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Climate_change)
I would love to now say, “we are all on the same page”, but experience has shown that facts and definitions don’t help much at all when it comes to global warming.
Even so, after all that is said, the essential questions remains. Since climate changes with or without mankind, and the earth warms (and cools) without man, how do you determine if, and if so, **how much influence are mankind’s changes making to the earth**?
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2419 "2014-04-21T21:53:41Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> Since climate changes with or without mankind, and the earth warms (and cools) without man, how do you determine if, and if so, **how much influence are mankind’s changes making to the earth**?
This is the question that cause John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear to run away. (Post #2133.) How someone can be sure of their position without being able to answer that is quite astounding.
---
### Author:  [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2420 "2014-04-22T02:22:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> No, you posted links claiming the definition was there, but it’s not. You don’t even use the terminology, much less explain clearly what you mean.
I posted links containing the definition and explained that very carefully to you. See for yourself.
> [@](#):
>
> I want to help you, I really do. So use the following terms and concepts when you discuss global warming, then you will seem educated. First off is **the greenhouse effect** , terribly named but we are stuck with it. then there is **The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect** , expected to lead to then Climate change, which is expected to be a rise in the global mean, which is called “global warming”, or anthropegenic global warming.
You referred to one page of a section that describes climate change. I posted to you the link to the introductory page from the same site.
> [@](#):
>
> In essence AGW means “an increase in the heat balance of the earth caused by an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human causes”.
That’s AGW. Climate change involves both nature and human activity, and the latter now has a forcing factor on climate. See the NAS final report for details.
> [@](#):
>
> “Anthropogenic climate change” refers to all the changes to climate from human beings. “Anthropogenic global warming” means the warming of the surface temperatures of the earth from **The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect**. They are not the same thing. [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Climate\_change](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Climate_change)
Yes, but you were asking for a definition of global warming, not AGW.
> [@](#):
>
> I would love to now say, “we are all on the same page”, but experience has shown that facts and definitions don’t help much at all when it comes to global warming.
Climate change refers to the effect of changes in global temperature anomaly on climate. Global warming is part of that.
Global warming refers to an increase in global temperature anomaly. It can be driven by nature and by human activity.
AGW refers to an increase in global temperature anomaly due to human activity.
All of these can be seen very clearly in the NASA article I shared earlier which defines global warming.
> [@](#):
>
> Even so, after all that is said, the essential questions remains. Since climate changes with or without mankind, and the earth warms (and cools) without man, how do you determine if, and if so, **how much influence are mankind’s changes making to the earth**?
Read the NAS final report.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=120)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=122)