# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **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:** 149
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2961 "2014-07-29T03:10:29Z")
You know, turning a pit topic into the never ending argument over climate change will be the death of it. Just like what happens to EVERY OTHER GLOBAL WARMING TOPIC! Then where will people bitch about how much they hate global warming? What then? > [@Fukkin Facist Florida Firearm Fanatics](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukkin-facist-florida-firearm-fanatics/581066/5): > > It’s one of the few positives of global warming: when sea level rises enough, eventually Florida will disappear. Oh haha you Florida hater you. Guess what? 20,000 years ago, when the great ice age ice sheets were melting away, the sea level was 120 meters lower than now. That’s like 393.701 feet lower than now. So most of Florida is already underwater. Yeah, that’s right. But guess what else? Between 4 to 6 thousand years ago (B.P.) the sea level was 3 meters higher than now. And Florida was still there. In fact, the raised beaches (from the higher sea level) worldwide are there in Florida. (the raised beaches are a main reason why we scientists know the sea level was higher) So even if the sea level rose 3 meters Florida will still be there. Going to fuck up the real estate pretty bad. But the ocean would have to rise like 30 meters to rid the world of Florida. Goddamn it global warming, get to work. We are going to need to melt all of Greenland to destroy Florida. And that hasn’t happened in millions of years. But you can do it. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2962 "2014-07-29T05:01:25Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Round Four … yes I did. > > Where did you counter my argument? Where have you said anything except aping works you cannot understand? Do you even know how to copy/paste sentences? > > Have you paid the $32 US and read the paper? One more time: what you quoted is the second sentence of the abstract. Read the next two sentences which contain the conclusion of the study. Abstracts contain conclusions of studies: > **[Abstract (summary)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_%28summary%29)** > > An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding, or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. When used, an abstract always appears at the beginning of a manuscript or typescript, acting as the point-of-entry for any given academic paper or patent application. Abstracting and indexing services for various academic disciplines are aimed at compiling a body of literature f Th... ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2963 "2014-07-29T18:23:12Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Have you paid the $32 US and read the paper? Don’t expect an answer, much less a discussion. This is GIGO light version 1.2 > [@ralfy](#): > > The citations are given in the same page. Also, the article was published in a newspaper: > > “IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think” > > [IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think | Climate crisis | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate) No, that is an online blog post, under the Gaurdian website, it was not published in the paper. > [@ralfy](#): > > Third, there are at least two papers mentioned in the article, and they are mentioned in other sites. For example, > > “IPCC Climate Forecast from 1990- Amazingly Accurate” > > [This blog has been archived. - AGU Blogosphere](http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2012/12/11/ipcc-climate-forecast-from-1990-amazingly-accurate/) > > “IPCC vs Reality: Who Got it Right?” > > [IPCC vs Reality: Who Got it Right? | Read the Science](http://readthescience.com/2012/12/06/ipcc-vs-reality-who-got-it-right/) > > “IPCC’s climate projections on target so far” > > [IPCC’s climate projections on target so far - Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/ipccs-climate-projections-on-target-so-far/) Those are all pro warming blogs, repeating the original blog points. The citation is [Browse Articles | Nature Climate Change](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html) which is ripped to shreds in other blogs. (this is called science by blog) It’s an incredible feat to go back, after all the models were wrong, and cherry pick and adjust some of them. then declare the models were right. > [@](#): > > The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. What? No problem. Just handwave it all away. > [@](#): > > Such comparisons **are not evidence against model trends** because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. Isn’t that just amazing? It’s like a message board, where just saying something makes it true. “they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations.” And just like that, the IPCC is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2964 "2014-07-29T19:56:10Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Isn’t that just amazing? It’s like a message board, where just saying something makes it true. > > “they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations.” If that’s “not evidence” against models then what exactly would be “evidence”? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2965 "2014-07-29T20:41:23Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If that’s “not evidence” against models then what exactly would be “evidence”? The only thing that will “prove” the consensus models wrong is a 60 year cooling period. If the next 42 years are also flat or cooling, then the models might be considered wrong. But, the models would be changed long before that happens (some of them already have been adjusted) so even then they won’t be wrong. I’m not kidding, it’s how science works. Science is never wrong, because once it’s impossible to deny that the current understanding is “incorrect”, the theory/model is changed, and now it’s right. You see? Just like this latest paper. The models weren’t “wrong”, they just had to be adjusted to match the evidence. Now they aren’t wrong. This exact same thing actually happened, with the solar cycle. In 2005 the consensus was that the next maximum would be huge, a grand maximum, a very strong solar cycle, sunspots and CMEs and flares like most had never seen before. But you won’t find anyone saying they were wrong. The model was “flawed”, and since then it’s been adjusted, and it actually predicted the solar minimum. That’s how big time science works. Same for when a flu vaccine missed the seasonal variation, and was worthless at protecting from the actual flu that year. They just guessed wrong about the strain, and it doesn’t mean the vaccines were wrong. These things happen you know. It’s not an exact science. It doesn’t mean anyone was wrong and a shit ton of money and time and energy was wasted. So climate models will never be “wrong”. People who talk like that don’t understand science and are stupid and probably believe the earth is flat. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2966 "2014-07-29T20:45:27Z")
Now to me, the entire thing is incredibly humorous. Because my theory and findings actually explain everything perfectly, and everybody else is wrong in their measures to still be right. The desperate and sometimes petty fights over the data and the models and even the cause is just spin and drama. Looking at the data tells the story, and anybody can do it. The problem is, the bias and vested interest and emotional attachment to being ‘right’ prevents most people from seeing what is obvious. And that is high comedy my friend. That’s gold Jerry, that’s gold. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2967 "2014-07-29T20:54:12Z")
Still enjoying your tag-team circle jerk, I see. Need anything? Lanolin cream for the chafing? No? There’s a good soldier. Well, carry on, boys. See you in another few weeks. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2968 "2014-07-30T08:38:50Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The only thing that will “prove” the consensus models wrong is a 60 year cooling period. If the next 42 years are also flat or cooling, then the models might be considered wrong. But, the models would be changed long before that happens (some of them already have been adjusted) so even then they won’t be wrong. Yes, older models go down the memory hole. The classic example is Hansen’s predictions from the 1980s. It turns out he wildly over-predicted warming. Any rational person would concede that this is evidence his theories are wrong. But that’s not what happens. > [@](#): > > I’m not kidding, it’s how science works. Science is never wrong, It’s not just that the warmists are never wrong – they go further than that. According to them, there is not even any evidence that they are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2969 "2014-07-30T11:06:03Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > One more time: what you quoted is the second sentence of the abstract. Read the next two sentences which contain the conclusion of the study. Round Five, yes I did, did you? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2970 "2014-07-30T11:18:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > This exact same thing actually happened, with the solar cycle. In 2005 the consensus was that the next maximum would be huge, a grand maximum, a very strong solar cycle, sunspots and CMEs and flares like most had never seen before. Hold on a second … buck-o … I don’t mind you calling climatologists a bunch of high-minded morons … but you drag Solar Astronomers into the mix then you better be able to back-up your words. I’d like to see your citation for any “consensus” of solar astronomers that this sunspot maxima what predicted to be “huge”. I’d like to see a citation where solar astronomers claim their models are accurate. I understand they said their inaccurate models predicted that we’d be at maximum, there’s nothing in the data that said it would be huge, just within a standard deviation. Not sure what you mean by models, they just looked at the graph and said “Looks like solar maxima is coming up again”. Solar output is notoriously unpredictable. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2971 "2014-07-30T16:23:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Hold on a second … buck-o … I don’t mind you calling climatologists a bunch of high-minded morons … but you drag Solar Astronomers into the mix then you better be able to back-up your words. . Good call, because some of it was indeed rhetorical bullshit, the part about “models” predicting and being changed after the fact. The predictions were based on observation, not computer models. Here’s a source of what was being said back in 2005. [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec\_cycle24/](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/) Note that Hathaway’s prediction for the next cycle (2022) is actually pretty close to the current one. Of course Abdussamatov predicted the current situation, but since he is also claiming a long term grand minimum, along with a little ice age, most people still consider him a crank. Even when he was spot on for the last winter. And the three winters before that. And that he says the global average is dropping. Nobody wants to hear that from a leading solar researcher. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2972 "2014-07-30T16:26:53Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > It’s not just that the warmists are never wrong – they go further than that. According to them, there is not even any evidence that they are wrong. That’s one of the things that makes it all so sick. Because of the battle lines drawn, and the rhetoric and political posturing, the economic issues, the science is fucked. Nobody wants to admit anything, because the other side will declare victory (or so they imagine), so the entire thing (the weather, the climates) is a matter of great conflict, instead of science. It’s sickening. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2973 "2014-07-31T00:18:40Z")
I’m sick of this Global Warming ! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2974 "2014-07-31T03:02:27Z")
August 15 2013 > [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Atlanta breaks a century-old temperature record](http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23151205/atlanta-breaks-a-century-old-temperature-record). July 30 2014 > [@](#): > > [Gainesville, Atlanta, Macon break record low temperatures](http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=277684) > > National Weather Service forecasters say the low of 60 degrees in Atlanta around 5 a.m. Wednesday broke the previous record of 61 degrees for the date. The previous record low for July 30 in Atlanta was set in 1936. I am so sick of this global warming. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2975 "2014-07-31T03:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > **[Dulles and BWI airports plunge to new record lows](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/30/dulles-and-bwi-airports-plunge-to-new-record-lows/)** > > Under the influence of an unusually deep pool of cool air for late July, temperatures across the D.C. and Baltimore areas plummeted into the 50s and even the 40s in a few spots this morning. > > The low temperatures were record-setting at both Dulles and BWI airports. > > The mercury at Dulles dropped to an astonishingly low 48 degrees, shattering the record of 51 from 1981. Records at Dulles have been kept since 1963. Damn, that is 16 degrees F above freezing. In the middle of summer. Of course it’s just unusual weather. If it was record heat, then it would be climate change. But another summer with record lows, it’s just weather. If it starts happening most summers, then it will be blamed on global warming. Like the epic cold winters. At first it was all like, “there will still be the occasional cold winter, global warming doesn’t mean it won’t still get cold now and then”. And saying a record cold winter, with record snow, somehow meant global warming wasn’t happening, that was just stupid. Until it kept happening, Then cold NH winters, with a lot of snow, that became possible evidence for global warming. So don’t laugh. Record cold in summers could actually be the next sign of global warming. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2976 "2014-07-31T03:15:21Z")
Well, I’m impressed. One cool weekend in one city is enough to void a half century of worldwide temperature trends. I guess some people don’t know what “average” means. Hint, check the temperatures in Los Angeles and try to tell me it ain’t hot. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2977 "2014-07-31T03:39:41Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Round Five, yes I did, did you? Why, then, are you ignoring the sentences that come after the one you mentioned? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2978 "2014-08-01T11:29:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Well, I’m impressed. One cool weekend in one city is enough to void a half century of worldwide temperature trends. > > I guess some people don’t know what “average” means. Hint, check the temperatures in Los Angeles and try to tell me it ain’t hot. I’m impressed, a half century of temperature trends is enough to void millions of years of ice core data, billions of years of O[sup]18[/sup] proxy data. I guess some people don’t know what “temperature” is. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2014, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2979 "2014-08-01T11:30:27Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > Why, then, are you ignoring the sentences that come after the one you mentioned? Please make a statement about these sentences. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/2980 "2014-08-02T00:33:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Well, I’m impressed. One cool weekend in one city is enough to void a half century of worldwide temperature trends. It works better if you use the term “fuckstick”, then you sound like a CNN reporter. > > [@Trinopus](#): > > I guess some people don’t know what “average” means. Hint, check the temperatures in Los Angeles and try to tell me it ain’t hot. That might have been a bad choice to use. The last two days in LA were unusually cool. And the short term trend there shows [no summer cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=2000&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Which I found surprising. At least [the winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2000&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shows some warming. Certainly [the long term trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=1915&year2=2000&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shows warming there. [The data since 2000](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2000&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), now that is another story. It illustrates quite well the very strange change that occurred, which also shows up in the global trend. Even GISS, which used to always show the most warming (they do not use any satellite data), shows [no annual global warming since 2002](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Anybody who has been keeping up just knows what is coming next. [No cold season warming since 2002](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). [Slight warm season warming since 2002](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=0506&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Now most people don’t even understand what that means. And experience has taught me one thing. Telling them ain’t gonna help. Not even a little bit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=148) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=150)