# 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:** 24
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/461 "2013-09-12T19:44:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Suffice to say I was not referring to the warming in the peculiar case of FX, but the false declarations regarding Plass not being recognized or that his theory was dismissed Yes, I know; we’ve been over this: FX has requested your prediction on the question of warming, and you refuse to give it. You’ll talk about all sorts of other things, without addressing that one. And why? Because: > [@](#): > > That FX “wants to learn how much it will warm” is not the point here So you say. FX says he’d like to hear your answer. Why not make the debate irrelevant by simply providing the prediction? Why rail against willful ignorance while _willfully_ refusing to dispel _ignorance_ by swiftly answering the question? > [@](#): > > it is clear that **TOWP** has to ignore the asinine behavior of FX and others just to continue with a point that under other circumstances it would be good, but under the current ones of willful ignorance demonstrated he is reaching just ridiculous levels to not deal with the trolls. That is just about the best way to get others to see him as also one. Again, the best way to get me to drop my objection altogether – which would possibly get FX to drop his objections to you likewise – would require remarkably little effort on your part. You refuse to answer his question about warming because it “is not the point here”. You state that you are “not referring to the warming in the peculiar case of FX”. In the time it took you to write out your latest post, you could’ve settled the issue with a quick mention of your prediction instead of repeatedly talking about why you don’t want to talk about it. How many more posts before you reply to FX with your verifiable prediction about warming, as he’s requested? Will you wait for weeks, as you have in the past? _Why?_ What does it cost you to do it? What do you gain by refusing? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/462 "2013-09-12T19:46:08Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Wait a fucking minute. First I am some stupid as hell moron that rants and makes no sense. Now I am a highly paid oil shill trying to cast doubt on … well … something. Global warming or climate change or whatever it is that nobody will actually just fucking define. No, you’re still a stupid as hell moron that just happens to be paid 😛 Global warming has already been defined, there is no controversy as to how its meaning and how its used. Only oily shill idiots would like to cast doubt on it. If you ever become honest, because let’s face it, you’re not getting smarter, you can debate Global Warming by acknowledging that everyone already knows what it means and what it stands for ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/463 "2013-09-12T19:50:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > ::shrugs:: I’m just glad you moved from _“You say you need a verifiable prediction? I can’t make one for Climate Change”_ all the way over to _“Here you go.”_ If you’d stuck with the former or led off with the latter, there probably wouldn’t have been a post of mine for you to lament the length of; as it is, you responded, and I thank you for it; if you want to continue with yet more insults, be my guest. Is it really an insult to simply highlight the stupidity in gainsaying experts but asserting you’re willing to be swayed by the predictions of a layman? (Okay. so I really enjoy the “highlighting” part… Sue me). ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/464 "2013-09-12T20:04:12Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > From the link: > … Or where you expecting me to say that there has been no warming since 1899 or 1930 or 1970? > > I will, however, accept that on this dataset the no-warming period extend only 150 months (2001) and not 200 unless we want to go to 1998 (but that year makes warmists cry). There are other datasets that show a slightly different trend. Okay…Follow directions _carefully_ this time Aji. Look at the nice _simple_ graph XT was kind enough to provide. Look at any decade since the 30’s when auto travel became the standard mode of transportation. Simple question, no cherry picked date/conversion/location/ Celsius to Farenheit BS. Do you see ANY extended down turn in there? No? Daaaamn. It’s like all we need is Adaher to pop in and we’d have the troll HOF for the SDMB going on here. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/465 "2013-09-12T22:03:56Z")
> [@sylmar](#): > > Is it really an insult to simply highlight the stupidity in gainsaying experts but asserting you’re willing to be swayed by the predictions of a layman? (Okay. so I really enjoy the “highlighting” part… Sue me). Well, “swayed” is an odd way of putting it. I’d say it’s more like this: imagine we meet a layman who says he believes in AGW. I’d ask what, specifically, he predicts. _“That each year will be warmer than the one before.”_ And then we meet another layman who says he believes in AGW; what, specifically, does he predict? _“That we’ll see at least a one degree rise in global average temperature between now and the end of the century,”_ he says. We meet another layman who says he believes in AGW; what does he predict? _“To be honest,”_ he says, _“I’m not sure. I don’t know what would prove it false.”_ Assuming I believe each of them is telling the truth – not about what will happen, or about what the scientific consensus predicts, but simply and only about what each of them believes – then, yeah, I guess you could stretch the meaning of the word and say they each swayed me by dint of informing me. But that’d be a pretty weird phrasing; none of that would influence my beliefs about future climate change, and none of it would involve gainsaying any experts. ---
**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:** [September 12, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/466 "2013-09-12T22:23:47Z")
Hahahaha The longer this goes on the funnier it gets. It makes me glad I took Gigogalloper off of ignore. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Gigobuster is very busy, but I’m quite sure that rather than waste a minute of anyone’s time, he will give you a precise answer to that question. Hahaha my prediction was wrong! Wrong I say! It’s also funny that he is now trying to attribute everything to me, when it was ralph124c that started him on his rant. > [@ralph124c](#): > > “Global Warming” is SO last year…its now “Climate Change”. Climate change covers everything-warm summers, cool winters, warm winters, cool summers, oceans heating up, oceans cooling down! Don’t confuse CC with science-its actually a cult religion. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > it was a Republican idea to “change” the name, actually there was no change, Global Warming and Climate Change are terms that have been used for more then 80 years. Actually, as I showed with that excellent NOAA article, the two terms mean different things, and what those are. But you have to admire the keen mind that can say “it was a Republican idea to “change” the name, actually there was no change”, and not realize what that sounds like. The entire joke here is based on the confusion between climate change and global warming. It’s why both sides realize there is something fucked up when you blame record cold on “global warming”, rather than climate change. But even if you use “climate change”, some people get upset, they think you are mocking them. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > What I see is that he is simply attempting to turn his sarcasm to 11 and tell others a caricature: that scientists are proposing that climate change is deadly and that scientists are deceivers as they will be correct no matter what changes come. Actually, I just quoted a bunch of claims made about global warming, which at the time the Gigos of the world did not protest. Of course NOW he will dismiss them, because it’s pretty obvious it was horseshit. He calls it a “silly piece” and actually labels it “alarmism”. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > even James Lovelock (who was the one interviewed for that silly piece) has dropped and repudiated his previous alarmism. So now you know how intelligent people view your alarmism. It’s just a matter of degree. He does however, still have the moral jackassery of Lovelock down to a T > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As usual the full costs of using the atmosphere as a sewer are never added by guys like brasil. Once again, just looking at ways to justify doing next to nothing. I would be carbon neutral even if there were no risk at all from fossil fuels. I oppose the oil industry, as well as coal, because of many reasons. I use the absolute minimum already, because I hate spending money. I’m so goddamn green I won’t eat fish from the ocean, because of over fishing. I plant trees, I fight erosion and I hate fucking people who trash the world. I’m mostly vegetarian, for both ecological reasons and health. (not eating animals is supposed to really lower your carbon footprint) It’s the holier than thou attitude of shitheads who want to preach that makes me sick. Gigofuck isn’t even the worst example of course. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As usual the full costs of using the atmosphere as a sewer are never added by guys like brasil. Unless you have never used fossil fuels in your life, YOU are exactly the same. It’s your hypocrisy and animosity, which you will never recognize, that makes you a fuckhead. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Once again, just looking at ways to justify doing next to nothing. that’s a judgement, and you have all the right in the world to act like an assbag. While you continue to pollute the world. But it makes you a hypocrite as well as a boorish waste of time. Now take your religious shtick and shove it where the global warming don’t shine. ---
**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:** [September 12, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/467 "2013-09-12T22:26:26Z")
Man this thread sure took a weird ass turn somewhere. > [@Finagle](#): > > – it’s been one year since Atlanta hit its all time record of [106 degrees on June 30](http://voices.yahoo.com/all-time-record-hottest-coldest-temperatures-ever-12114162.html) (since recording started in 1878). If you’re willing to base your assessment of current climate \* change \* on a single data point or even a single summer’s, then why weren’t you running around like Chicken Little a year ago? > [@XT](#): > > Huh. I didn’t realize we measured the average global temperature in Atlanta. Learn something new every day I guess… Now we have Waldo Pepper holding the alarmists feet to the fire. Internet, you rarely disappoint. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/468 "2013-09-12T23:20:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Man this thread sure took a weird ass turn somewhere. > > Now we have Waldo Pepper holding the alarmists feet to the fire. > > Internet, you rarely disappoint. Owww ! Oww ! Oww!! You’r RIGHT for once FX! Your STUPIDITY! It buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrns! ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/469 "2013-09-12T23:20:31Z")
> [@sylmar](#): > > Okay…Follow directions _carefully_ this time Aji. > > Look at the nice _simple_ graph XT was kind enough to provide. Look at any decade since the 30’s when auto travel became the standard mode of transportation. > > Simple question, no cherry picked date/conversion/location/ Celsius to Farenheit BS. > > Do you see ANY extended down turn in there? > > No? Daaaamn. > > It’s like all we need is Adaher to pop in and we’d have the troll HOF for the SDMB going on here. Maybe you think you’re lke the mayor of Gotchaville or something, you really aren’t even in charge of washing the assistant Comptroller’s of Gotchaville’s gardener’s soiled underwear. Since I have never, not ever, said anything about an extended downturn in temperatures I don’t know what you’re talking about. I always mention a flattening or non-statistically relevatn warming since, depending on the dataset, 1995 to 2001. I’m sorry that you read that as “extended downturn”. I accept as correct the chart, with the proviso that there are slightly different datasets with slightly different results and that for reasons that are not particularly relevant for this specific post I prefer satellite data when available. I’m sorry, you failed. Boo-fucking-ya. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/470 "2013-09-12T23:28:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, “swayed” is an odd way of putting it. I’d say it’s more like this: imagine we meet a layman who says he believes in AGW. I’d ask what, specifically, he predicts. _“That each year will be warmer than the one before.”_ > > And then we meet another layman who says he believes in AGW; what, specifically, does he predict? _“That we’ll see at least a one degree rise in global average temperature between now and the end of the century,”_ he says. > > We meet another layman who says he believes in AGW; what does he predict? _“To be honest,”_ he says, _“I’m not sure. I don’t know what would prove it false.”_ > > Assuming I believe each of them is telling the truth – not about what will happen, or about what the scientific consensus predicts, but simply and only about what each of them believes – then, yeah, I guess you could stretch the meaning of the word and say they\*\*\* each swayed me by dint of informing me\*\*\*. But that’d be a pretty weird phrasing;\*\*\* none of that would influence my beliefs\*\*\* about future climate change, and none of it would involve gainsaying any experts. Brah, could you spin a little faster? I wanna see if you explode or reach escape velocity… I’ll file your little lecture away under," Likes to make pointless, irrelevant requests." ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2013, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/471 "2013-09-12T23:35:24Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Maybe you think you’re lke the mayor of Gotchaville or something, you really aren’t even in charge of washing the assistant Comptroller’s of Gotchaville’s gardener’s soiled underwear. > > _ **Since I have never, not ever, said anything about an extended downturn in temperatures I don’t know what you’re talking about** _. I always mention a flattening or non-statistically relevatn warming since, depending on the dataset, 1995 to 2001. I’m sorry that you read that as “extended downturn”. > > I accept as correct the chart, with the proviso that there are slightly different datasets with slightly different results and that for reasons that are not particularly relevant for this specific post I prefer satellite data when available. > > I’m sorry, you failed. > > Boo-fucking-ya. Ummm. Brah. Do you like suffer selective amnesia or are you just intentionally duplicitous? Not that the distinction is important to the overall impression. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The nice thing about knowing math is that you understan why the phrae “ **no warming in 200 months** ” is not contradicted at all by “ **last June is one of the hottest** ”, since, we all know this, we are in warm times. Hmm… 200 months sounds pretty extensive , but who knows? Maybe you’re one of the Eternals? ---
**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:** [September 12, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/472 "2013-09-12T23:40:25Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Now take your religious shtick and shove it where the global warming don’t shine. Meh, like if the mods here did not pass judgement already on who you really are, you were already shoved here in the pit, where the roast that is you will never make anything of value nor demonstrate ever where it counts that you are right. And once again your silliness shows by insisting that I do not accept the science links or the definitions that you posted, as shown with the Scientific American articles I linked then to, you will continue to deny that they report that Plass is recognized as the father of the modern global warming theory and that Scientific American also reported on the research already done on the existence of the water vapor feedback. So, continue to deny that the sources you used do help me a lot, it is not my problem that you do look like an idiot to others. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/473 "2013-09-13T00:56:42Z")
> [@sylmar](#): > > Ummm. Brah. Do you like suffer selective amnesia or are you just intentionally duplicitous? Not that the distinction is important to the overall impression. > Hmm… 200 months sounds pretty extensive , but who knows? Maybe you’re one of the Eternals? In what universe does “no warming” mean “dowturn”? Just to make sure: My claim: No warming, i.e. ΔT ≈ 0 You responded by saying that there had been no downturn, i.e. ΔT \< 0 (stastistically significantly speaking) I responded that I never claimed a downturn, only a pause. You now quote my original post, the one that says “no warming” and, via a lame joke, tried to make it into “prolonged downturn.” I’ll repeat, since 1930 (your date of choice) there has been no statistically significant downward trend in tempereature that has lasted more than a decade, but since I’ve never claimed that, I fail to see your point. Second boo-fuckin’-ya. BTW, I’ll handhold you so you’ll understand this phrase ““no warming in 200 months” is not contradicted at all by “last June is one of the hottest””. Let’s say (invented numbers) this is the average temperature anomaly for the last 30 years in 0.01°C 12-14-17-12-14-14-19-17-24-28- 30-34-33-36-38-33-35-40-44-47- 45-46-40-41-39-40-44-44-43-42. - Temperatures have increased. - The last 10 years were hotter than the first ten or second ten years of this progression. - The last year is one of the hottest of the series - There is a slight downward trend since the peak of 47. - This trend may not be really significant and it, for sure, doesn’t negate the net upward trend since year 1. Served. You. Have. Been. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/474 "2013-09-13T02:04:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Do you ever wonder _why_ you so often come up against, and find ytourself again resignedly deriding, the complaint that AGW is like unto a religion? Because it’s the most commonly parroted denialist trope and the easiest to repeat ad nauseum. It requires no understanding to state and quite a bit of understanding to make, as AGW is a pretty fucking hard subject to understand to any degree. You might as well ask why supporters of evolution so often get “it’s still a bird/bacteria/ape/dog/etc.” thrown at them. It’s a simple question with a difficult answer and allows those who don’t want to know to ignore the entire subject like the denialist cuntwickets they are. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/475 "2013-09-13T07:41:59Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Because it’s the most commonly parroted denialist trope and the easiest to repeat ad nauseum. It requires no understanding to state and quite a bit of understanding to make, as AGW is a pretty fucking hard subject to understand to any degree. If that’s the case, then why not demonstrate that this argument (or claim) is wrong by providing clear answers to the questions which have been posed? 1. What exactly is meant by the hypothesis (or theory) you refer to as “AGW”? 2. Exactly what predictions are made by this hypothesis? 3. Please summarize the evidence supporting the hypothesis. ---
**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:** [September 13, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/476 "2013-09-13T08:55:39Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If that’s the case, then why not demonstrate that this argument (or claim) is wrong by providing clear answers to the questions which have been posed? > > 1. What exactly is meant by the hypothesis (or theory) you refer to as “AGW”? First, it has to be noticed that Scientific American (the source deniers refuse to use unless a definition that I already accepted needs to be used to show others that I do not use –Yeah, I still wonder how that works in FX not a mastermind or the brasil nut’s favor) reports, the majority of the “skeptics” like to say that AGW is only a theory. Well, at least many skeptics, except the ones here, do see that it is there anyhow. The same cite also reports what are the basics of the theory and others that have failed to pan out to explain the current warming. > **[Is Global Warming a Myth?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-global-warming-a-myth/)** > > How to respond to people who doubt the human impact on the climate > [@](#): > > According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense, some possible (natural) explanations include increased output from the sun, increased absorption of the sun’s heat due to a change in the Earth’s reflectivity, or a change in the internal climate system that transfers heat to the atmosphere. > But scientists have not been able to validate any such reasons for the current warming trend, despite exhaustive efforts. And a raft of recent peer reviewed studies—many which take advantage of new satellite data—back up the claim that it is emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks (and now factory farmed food animals, which release methane) that are causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment. > To wit, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declared in 2005 that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” adding that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” Other leading U.S. scientific bodies, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union have issued concurring statements—placing the blame squarely on humans’ shoulders. As the National Academy of Sciences reports: > **[19014\_cvtx\_R1.pdf](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf)** > [@](#): > > This booklet is intended to help people understand what is known about climate change. > First, it lays out the evidence that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, > are responsible for much of the warming and related changes being observed around > the world. Second, it summarizes projections of future climate changes and impacts > expected in this century and beyond. Finally, the booklet examines how science can help > inform choices about managing and reducing the risks posed by climate change. The > information is based on a number of National Research Council reports (see inside back > cover), each of which represents the consensus of experts who have reviewed hundreds of > studies describing many years of accumulating evidence. > But how has this conclusion been reached? Climate science, > like all science, is a process of collective learning that > relies on the careful gathering and analyses of data, > the formulation of hypotheses, the development of > models to study key processes and make testable > predictions, and the combined use of observations > and models to test scientific understanding. > Scientific knowledge builds over time as new > observations and data become available. > Confidence in our understanding grows if multiple > lines of evidence lead to the same conclusions, or > if other explanations can be ruled out. In the case of > climate change, scientists have understood for more > than a century that emissions from the burning of fossil > fuels could lead to increases in the Earth’s average surface > temperature. Decades of research have confirmed and extended this > understanding. > [@brazil84](#): > > 1. Exactly what predictions are made by this hypothesis? > [@](#): > > In order to respond > effectively to the risks > posed by future climate > change, decision makers > need information on the > types and severity of > impacts that might > be expected. > > Fortunately, scientists have made great strides in > predicting the amount of temperature change that > can be expected for different amounts of future > greenhouse gas emissions and in understanding > how increments of globally averaged > temperatures—increases of 1°C, 2°C, 3°C and > so forth—relate to a wide range of impacts. > Many of these projected impacts pose serious > risks to human societies and things people care > about, including water resources, coastlines, > infrastructure, human health, food security, and > land and ocean ecosystems. More, and the details in the PDF > [@brazil84](#): > > 1. Please summarize the evidence supporting the hypothesis. The quoted PDF is a summary of the evidence, One important passage is here: > [@](#): > > Another way to test a scientific theory is to investigate > alternative explanations. Because > the Sun’s output has a strong influence on Earth’s > temperature, scientists have examined records of > solar activity to determine if changes in solar output > might be responsible for the observed global warming > trend. The most direct measurements of solar > output are satellite readings, which have been available > since 1979. > > These satellite records show that > the Sun’s output has not shown a net increase during > the past 30 years (Figure 10) and thus cannot be > responsible for the warming during that period. > Prior to the satellite era, solar energy output had > to be estimated by more indirect methods, such as > records of the number of sunspots observed each > year, which is an indicator of solar activity. These > indirect methods suggest there was a slight increase > in solar energy reaching Earth during the first few > decades of the 20th century. This increase may have > contributed to global temperature increases during > that period, but does not explain warming in the > latter part of the century. > > Further evidence that current warming is not > a result of solar changes can be found in the > temperature trends in the different layers of the > atmosphere. These data come from two sources: > weather balloons, which have been launched > twice daily from hundreds of sites worldwide > since the late 1950s, and satellites, which have > monitored the temperature of different layers of the > atmosphere since the late 1970s. Both of these data > sets have been heavily scrutinized, and both show a > warming trend in the lower layer of the atmosphere > (the troposphere) and a cooling trend in the > upper layer (the stratosphere) (Figure 11). This is > exactly the vertical pattern of temperature changes > expected from increased greenhouse gases, > which trap energy closer to the Earth’s surface. If > an increase in solar output were responsible for > the recent warming trend, the vertical pattern of > warming would be more uniform through the > layers of the atmosphere. Much more in the PDF. The problem of this line of “non inquire” is that it is indeed used to avoid dealing with the reason why we are in the pit, originally a stupid ranting from the OP on cold reports that I explained is misleading and a straw-man (specially when directed at me) and only continues the avoidance to deal with the blatant lies regarding Plass, his theory, water vapor feedback, what I do look at and read. For some reason the deniers here assume that I would not welcome other sources of information that \*\*continue \*\*to show the deniers to be the clowns and fools that they are. And for some reason, the deniers (and some Karl Popper follower without a clue) never seen to grasp the concept of “give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” ---
**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:** [September 13, 2013, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/477 "2013-09-13T10:51:55Z")
I really think he just doesn’t know. Clearly skepticalscience doesn’t know. But this is beyond boring. Poking a pathetic troll like Gigogallop has no pay off. > [@brazil84](#): > > 1. What exactly is meant by the hypothesis (or theory) you refer to as “AGW”? > > 2. Exactly what predictions are made by this hypothesis? > > 3. Please summarize the evidence supporting the hypothesis. He just can’t answer, and he doesn’t realize his quotes don’t either. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, continue to deny that the sources you used do help me a lot If I had to answer, it is quite easy. But of course I can’t answer for Gigo and company. I still don’t know what they mean when they say global warming. Or what they are predicting will happen, or how we can know if it is happening. ---
**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:** [September 13, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/478 "2013-09-13T11:03:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > First, it has to be noticed that Scientific American reports, the majority of the “skeptics” like to say that AGW is only a theory. Well who can argue with such a pseudo-scientific conclusion/claim like that? I don’t think I’ve ever read any science based skeptic say those words. “AGW is only a theory” doesn’t appear on skepticalscience. > **[Skeptical Science Search Results](https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=%22AGW%2Bis%2Bonly%2Ba%2Btheory%22&x=15&y=13)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... A Google search found scant references, mostly people like Gigo claiming other people said it. The “consequences of global warming” doesn’t appear on SS > **[Skeptical Science Search Results](https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=%22consequences%2Bof%2Bglobal%2Bwarming%22&x=14&y=13)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... but it could be a wording problem. I keep waiting for Gigogallop to link us to where they answer those questions. What do you mean? What does that say will happen? How can we know if it’s true? With the endless posting about it, you might think one of the prophets of doom here could explain the prophesy, and why we should let them run the world. ---
**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:** [September 13, 2013, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/479 "2013-09-13T11:48:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The same cite also reports what are the basics of the theory and others that have failed to pan out to explain the current warming. > > [Is Global Warming a Myth? | Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth) For those who won’t bother to read a long pdf, the word “theory” appears three times there, but not in regards to an AGW theory, global warming theory, or greenhouse gas theory, nothing. They start off as if “global warming” is well known fact and go on to support it, never defining what it means, or what the falsification would be, or the mechanism for how CO2 is supposed to cause it. It’s more of the same avoidance. On page 11 they first mention theory, by saying “Another way to test a scientific theory is to investigate alternative explanations.” They have not said what the theory is, and they never do. Describing warming, they say > [@](#): > > Even though satellites measure temperature very > differently than instruments on Earth’s surface, and > any errors would be of a completely different > nature, the two records agree. A number of other > indicators of global warming have also been > observed (see pp.15-17). For example, heat waves > are becoming more frequent, cold snaps are now > shorter and milder, snow and ice cover are > decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere, glaciers > and ice caps around the world are melting, and > many plant and animal species are moving to cooler > latitudes or higher altitudes because it is too warm > to stay where they are. The picture that emerges > from all of these data sets is clear and consistent: > Earth is warming. When trying to place CO2 as causation, they state > [@](#): > > Based on a rigorous assessment of available temperature records, climate > forcing estimates, and sources of natural climate > variability, scientists have concluded that there is a > more than 90% chance that most of the observed > global warming trend over the past 50 to 60 years > can be attributed to emissions from the burning of > fossil fuels and other human activities. There is a pretty serious problem right there, since they have discounted the sun as a cause of warming, they do not explain the warming since the little ice age. It wasn’t the sun, and it wasn’t CO2, they just don’t talk about it. There hasn’t been a 60 year warming trend either. There was a cooling then a warming. If you look at the present warming since 1940s (the warmest global period before present) till the current anomalies, there was slightly more than .3C warming. This is what is attributed to CO2 increase. [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940) Now that is going to be disputed of course. GISS will show almost .5C, Hadcrut4 .4C, and BEST almost .6C with Land only between .5 and 1C, depends on who you believe at that point. SSTs might be .2 to .4C increase. depends on who you ask. But the point is they start at the coldest time period to calculate the warming trend, which is cherry picking of course. (expect howls of outrage when GIGO gets to this part) When they reach water vapor – > [@](#): > > This is because warmer temperatures tend to increase evaporation from oceans, lakes, plants, and soil, which, according to both theory and observations, will boost the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by about 7% per 1°C (1.8°F) of warming. And > [@](#): > > The total amount of warming that will occur in > response to a climate forcing is determined by a > variety of feedbacks, which either amplify or dampen > the initial warming. For example, as Earth warms, > polar snow and ice melt, allowing the darker colored > land and oceans to absorb more heat—causing Earth > to become even warmer, which leads to more snow > and ice melt, and so on (see Figure 9). Another important feedback involves water vapor. The amount of > water vapor in the atmosphere increases as the ocean > surface and the lower atmosphere warm up; warming of 1°C (1.8°F) increases water vapor by about > 7%. Because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, > this increase causes additional warming Now there is some serious claims about feed backs. It’s at this point that one might remember “Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor.” ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2013, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/480 "2013-09-13T12:43:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I really think he just doesn’t know. I doubt that any of the warmist posters here have a clear idea of exactly what is and is not claimed by their side; what is and is not predicted by their side; or what factual evidence supports those claims and predictions. My sense is that they simply repeat the same vague claims again and again so they can pretend to themselves and others that they are morally and intellectually superior. Thus the temper tantrums when presented with questions they cannot answer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=25)