# 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:** 245
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4881 "2015-09-06T16:56:15Z")
The power of your sarcastic ammunition is…adequate. Work on targeting? Is it the concept of international law? Good intentions gone awry? New Coke? ---
**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 7, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4882 "2015-09-07T20:57:36Z")
It’s sort of a sawed off thoughtgun approach. I’m bound to hit something. With a wide enough spread and a lot of ammo, something is going down. The collateral damage is terrible however. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4883 "2015-09-07T23:00:04Z")
Then we are grateful for your selection of the Nerf line of armament. Very thoughtful. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2015, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4884 "2015-09-08T05:16:27Z")
It’s going to be unquestionably warmer in couple decades. Crops in some areas won’t grow as well. Insects and disease will migrate into areas where they were rare before. Requiring more precision in these predictions is like demanding to know when someone says the pot of water is going to boil that unless they can describe the bubble pattern, they’re just spewing nonsense. This information age civilization we have is very sensitive to change. And generally speaking it’s the poor that pay the price for it. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4885 "2015-09-09T03:37:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Let me try and give you an answer so you can understand the problem with your question. > > Do you conclude the planet is getting wetter? Not just in the rain-forest, not just in summer, or in winter, but the whole thing? Year round, more moisture in the air, more rainfall at sea, over land, everything combined? > > And since we know it is, doesn’t that mean the drought in California means nothing at all? It’s the average that matters, not regional changes. Why can’t you understand this? (that was the example, a vain attempt to get you to grasp a simple point) > > Can you see why the question is a fallacy of sorts? Focusing on the mythical global land+SST annual average isn’t the right question. Because we know for sure that from 1910-1940 the global annual mean rose as much as recent trends show. And it isn’t considered from CO2, so just a rise in the annual global temperature isn’t the right question. What we need to know, is how things are changing, and why. > > If the changes show the fingerprints of greenhouse forcing, then we can say with confidence that CO2 levels are the driver of the changes. One major indicator of a CO2 forced change is that the stratosphere cools, since theory says if it were solar changes, the entire atmosphere would warm. If the troposphere warms, while the stratosphere cools, we have confidence it’s the greenhouse effect causing it. > > Same for the land warming more than over oceans, and night time lows warming more than daytime highs, (Tmin rise vs Tmax rise). And winters, especially high latitude winters, warming more than summers. These are indicators of AGW. Because of the sun (or something else) was dominating climate change, we expect to see a different sort of change. > > If summers warm faster than winters, it isn’t greenhouse forcing. This is a key part of greenhouse theory of climate change. If Tmax shows a rising trend, but Tmin shows a cooling, or flat trend, it’s not greenhouse warming. And these are things I have noted many time in this thread. > > These are basic global warming theory basics. That you don’t know this, along with the rest of the clown car parade of morons posting idiocy here, is just so absurd, it’s hilarious. > > It really is. Let’s see if I can take a stab at this. 1. Wetter world? I’m told that’s so, and it follows from observed Global warming. Yet, a dry weather pattern has developed over California. I don’t know why you insist that global effects should be evenly spread out over the globe. To what, exactly, are you claiming the drought is insignificant? The claim of AGW? 2. The colder boreal winters you keep pointing to are regional phenomena. I have pointed this out a couple times- remember the cite explaining how warming in the Chukchi sea is associated with colder winters over eastern North America? Another warming arctic ocean zone is associated with colder winters over Siberia. Everywhere else, we see warming. So, taking the average, we see Boreal Warming, even though the effect is not evenly spread out. Boreal Warming, FX. Are the arctic warm zones stationary? What happens when we start to see ice-free summers in the arctic? Might accelerated warming cause changes in ocean currents, such that arctic warming might take place more quickly in different areas than it does now, causing cold winter zones in shifting parts of the NH? Wouldn’t it make more sense to step back and look at the average effect, if our purpose is indeed to discover whether or not AGW is taking place? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4886 "2015-09-09T04:08:57Z")
So, you’re going to try reasoning? Again. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4887 "2015-09-09T04:29:35Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, you’re going to try reasoning? Again. It’s worth it…if some innocent bystander happens to wander in here (pity the poor bloke!) and is taken in by the lies **FXMastermind** likes to sling. Also, y’know, practice. Like shooting at a paper silhouette of a menacing figure at a target range. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4888 "2015-09-09T04:50:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, you’re going to try reasoning? Again. Hey, it has worked in my personal life. ---
**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 9, 2015, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4889 "2015-09-09T05:53:07Z")
What I said (it’s still right there,) > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I’ve made the point multiple times that using a global average to dismiss everything you dislike about the world, is as stupid as claiming there is no drought in California because the global rainfall is actually higher than in the past. So using the global average, the extreme drought in the US is meaningless, it doesn’t matter. This is a direct response to the idiocy of saying “the colder winters are regional, and globally it’s warmer than ever”, and “What part of average can’t you understand?”. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I don’t know why you insist that global effects should be evenly spread out over the globe. To what, exactly, are you claiming the drought is insignificant? Of course I never claimed that, I used it as an example of an idiot claim, where the response to “The western US is having the worst drought ever”, would be “What part of average do you not understand?”. It’s always possible the communication is munged, and you can’t actually understand the point. Or I’m doing a terrible job of writing here. Let’s try another tack. Here’s an example of pure dismissal of an event, [because it’s weather, and doesn’t matter](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/19/dear-snow-trolls-winter-weather-does-not-refute-global-warming/). > [@](#): > > If you live in the United States, you have been feeling insanely cold lately. The area south of Buffalo got five feet of snow yesterday – an extreme winter weather outburst that is being blamed for a tragic five deaths – and the Weather Channel says that parts of the Midwest and Great Lakes region may experience “one of the longest sub-freezing spells on record for the month of November.” But the whole United States has been quite cold. In Washington, D.C., last night, a weather emergency was announced due to the expectation of extremely cold temperatures. > > We’ve been through this drill before – last winter, actually. And it’s important to keep in mind that just because it is very cold in the United States doesn’t mean that you should question the overall warming trend for the planet. Weather shifts heat and cold around – we know that. We also know our own local experiences inherently bias us, since we live the weather in only one place. **But the total global picture remains one of warming.** Got that? Now let’s use the same rhetoric and report on the drought. To explain why it doesn’t mean anything. > [@](#): > > But the whole west coast has been quite hot and dry In northern California, a weather emergency was announced due to the expectation of extremely high temperatures. > > We’ve been through this drill before – last year, actually. And it’s important to keep in mind that just because it is very hot and dry in the western United States doesn’t mean that you should question the overall trend for the planet. Weather shifts heat and cold around – we know that. We also know our own local experiences inherently bias us, since we live the weather in only one place. **But the total global picture remains one of more rainfall.** You see? It’s the exact same thing, saying "The drought, it’s just weather, and because the global average is wetter, it doesn’t mean anything. Some places will get wetter, others will become drier. But the average, that’s what matters. " Then we have the other thing. [Here’s another one](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/10/what-the-massive-snowfall-in-boston-tells-us-about-global-warming/). > [@](#): > > You could treat this as ordinary weather, or, you could think about it in a climate context. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, the fact remains that — as I have noted previously — some kinds of winter precipitation could indeed be more intense because we’re in a warming world. Now the severe cold, the record snow, now instead of dismissing it (as we saw in the first story), it’s become “it could be due to warming”. Or, as we have seen, [Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap](http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/) So it’s either meaningless (it’s just weather), or the cold is actually caused by global warming. Heads I win, tails you lose. > [@](#): > > But scientists stress this weather does not mean that those gases are no longer exerting a warming influence. Nor does it go against the grain of [basic global warming theory.](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html) If California was getting lots of rain (which it certainly did a few years ago), that is also global warming. If the winter is warm, it’s global warming. If it’s cold, that’s also global warming. It’s impossible, using that logic, to know if the theory is right or not. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4890 "2015-09-09T06:19:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > What I said (it’s still right there,) This is a direct response to the idiocy of saying “the colder winters are regional, and globally it’s warmer than ever”, and “What part of average can’t you understand?”. How is it a rebuttal? You point to a region, and a fairly small one at that, and try to pretend it refutes global warming. What part of average can’t you understand? You call it idiocy, but it’s a question you can’t answer, and which none of your posts has ever addressed. No global warming model has ever said that limited regions might not have extremes of temperature. Some limited regions have extremely high temperatures. The Sahara, the Atacama, the Mojave. Those don’t prove anything either. You don’t have a model, you don’t have a point, and you don’t have a clue. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4891 "2015-09-09T09:03:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > How is it a rebuttal? You point to a region, and a fairly small one at that, and try to pretend it refutes global warming. > > What part of average can’t you understand? > > You call it idiocy, but it’s a question you can’t answer, and which none of your posts has ever addressed. No global warming model has ever said that limited regions might not have extremes of temperature. > > Some limited regions have extremely high temperatures. The Sahara, the Atacama, the Mojave. Those don’t prove anything either. > > You don’t have a model, you don’t have a point, and you don’t have a clue. The FXMasturbator mystifies me. Sometimes he seems intelligent and sincere, thoughwe know he’s never written a journal article (or even taken English Composition from a competent high school teacher): he has no concept of what an introductory paragraph is. He seems to focus on the idea that winters aren’t warming. Googling I see graphs that [N.H. winters are warming more than summers on average](http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/5281011.gif). Does he think such graphs are all products of Algore’s lies? Back when I was foolish enough to click his links I saw that his data was all based on very blatant cherry-picking. When called on that, I think he made some claim that his cherry-picking was parody, or a turnabout-is-fair-play ploy. Yet the cherry-picking seems to be all he has! Unless he’s a moron, he knows this. Is he suffering from a senility, where every morning he wakes up unfamiliar with the concept of cherry-picking, posts, gets educated, falls asleep and forgets again? Is he just a pervert, with trolling in this thread being a recreation he prefers to torturing insects? Is he like the retired career Air Force technician who never made it past E5, bitter that his specialty wasn’t appreciated? But where do the brief bouts of knowledge and lucidity come from? The FXMasturbator mystifies me. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4892 "2015-09-09T13:59:33Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If California was getting lots of rain (which it certainly did a few years ago), that is also global warming. If the winter is warm, it’s global warming. If it’s cold, that’s also global warming. > > It’s impossible, using that logic, to know if the theory is right or not. If the planet were not warming overall, then we’d have not-global warming. But it is, which is why all arguments seem to lead to that conclusion. I don’t know why you insist on focusing on anomalous regional events. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4893 "2015-09-09T14:31:03Z")
The whole flaw in the oft-patched-up AGW model is the fundamental assumption that the earth’s climate (before human-produced CO2) was in some sort of equilibrium. This is not the case-whether solar radiation variation, Milankovice Cycles, volcanic eruptions, the climate is always changing. So trying to attribute warming to once cause (PPM levels of CO2) is incorrect. there is NO “equilibrium” to be disturbed. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4894 "2015-09-09T15:15:14Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The whole flaw in the oft-patched-up AGW model is the fundamental assumption that the earth’s climate (before human-produced CO2) was in some sort of equilibrium. This is not the case-whether solar radiation variation, Milankovice Cycles, volcanic eruptions, the climate is always changing. So trying to attribute warming to once cause (PPM levels of CO2) is incorrect. there is NO “equilibrium” to be disturbed. Equilibrium does exist, just that with so many factors changing (and you’ve listed only a few of the more than twenty) the Earth is never _at_ equilibrium. Or perhaps better said equilibrium is always changing with these many many factors. I do agree with your assertion that focusing on just one factor and claiming that’s the only one to be considered is ridiculous, small-minded and blind. Hells bells, half the CO[sub]2[/sub] man-kind dumps into the atmosphere disappears, like magic. ---
**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 11, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4895 "2015-09-11T00:15:08Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The whole flaw in the oft-patched-up AGW model is the fundamental assumption that the earth’s climate (before human-produced CO2) was in some sort of equilibrium. This is not the case-whether solar radiation variation, Milankovice Cycles, volcanic eruptions, the climate is always changing. This is why I find the theory of global warming to be the most important part of global warming. It didn’t start off as a theory to explain recent warming as caused by humans, despite what so many seem to think/believe. It was to explain the changes that were recently discovered to be the only constant of climate, changing from cold glacier periods to [relatively warm interglacials](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589401923166). > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I do agree with your assertion that focusing on just one factor and claiming that’s the only one to be considered is ridiculous, small-minded and blind. Hells bells, half the CO[sub]2[/sub] man-kind dumps into the atmosphere disappears, like magic. But that is an essential fact, the CO2 theory of climate change claims CO2 is the controlling factor for climate change, both the cold and the warm periods, are controlled by CO2 levels. Nothing else. > [@AlienVessels](#): > > It’s going to be unquestionably warmer in couple decades. The thing about a claim like that, is if 20 years it’s actually colder (if the solar physicist are correct), then so what? The global alarmists will simply say “natural cycles have temporarily halted warming, and warming will resume again, more than ever”. We know this because that was already claimed as one of the reasons for the pause, which already happened. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Let’s see if I can take a stab at this. > > 1. Wetter world? I’m told that’s so, and it follows from observed Global warming. But here’s the thing, the CO2 theory (AGW), which was brought back to life by Plass (and others), says that climate change occurs because of CO2 levels changing. A big objection to the theory was that it couldn’t explain the glacier building periods, for one simple and obvious reason. Cooling from less CO2 ( ice caps and glaciers growing again) would mean less precipitation, so the snow and ice would decrease with cooling. This was overcome when Plass claimed cooling from reduced CO2 would cause more precipitation, due to cloud tops cooling. **It was a main point, to keep the theory alive**. Cooling meant more moisture falling, not less. (if it was less, the theory couldn’t explain glacier building as the planet cooled) If this sounds strange, and hard to believe, then you never read his (Plass) papers, and especially not his theory. > [@Trinopus](#): > > You point to a region, and a fairly small one at that, and try to pretend it refutes global warming. You are either confused, an idiot or a liar, since I never said that, much less would I say such a thing. It doesn’t really matter why you seem like an idiot, the effect is the same. You seem like an idiot liar. > [@Trinopus](#): > > What part of average can’t you understand? The theory does not predict an average warming from an increased greenhouse effect. It predicts a lot of warming at the polar regions, an equal warming in both hemispheres, more warming over land than oceans, and the most warming in NH winters, especially at high latitudes. If global warming just meant the average goes up, the past warming periods would also be global warming, which is absurd. However absurd it sounds, there are a few that think past warming was due to humans, with the increase of agriculture, any warming since the HCO (Holocene Climatic Optimum) 5000 years ago is AGW to them. During the HCO sea levels were 3 meters higher worldwide, and it was much warmer than at present. It has cooled since then. > [@septimus](#): > > He seems to focus on the idea that winters aren’t warming. Googling I see graphs that [N.H. winters are warming more than summers on average](http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/5281011.gif). Does he think such graphs are all products of Algore’s lies? Don’t be an idiot. Even using global data, [the winter cooling trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1979.08/every:12), centered on Februaries, is obvious. [Compare to the NH summers](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1979.56/every:12), it’s really obvious. I know you can’t comprehend this, mores the pity. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > If the planet were not warming overall, then we’d have not-global warming… That’s an idiotic statement. If the planet was warming from increased solar output, less dust and pollution, a decrease in clouds, ocean circulation changes, changes in orbital cycles, or from any other cause than a human caused increase in CO2, it would not be called global warming. The warming periods in the past are not called global warming, you idiot. Global warming does not mean “planet get hotter, durr herp durp”, so quit saying stupid shit. Global warming is when climate change, of the warming kind, is due to changes in the planetary heat balance, caused by people burning shit, especially fossil fuels, and turning land into highways, parking lots, houses and industrial centers, or crops and pastureland, instead of forests and swamps. Is it really that impossible for anyone to grasp this? Basic global warming theory shouldn’t be some mystery, nor should people keep saying stupid shit and being dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4896 "2015-09-11T01:20:12Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > . . . You are either confused, an idiot or a liar, since I never said that . . . You said it in the OP, you said it several times since then, and you’ve repeated it dozens of times in this thread. Then you’ve lied and said you didn’t say it. Then you lied again and said it was parody. You’re a liar and an idiot, and also a troll. You’ve wandered so far away from the truth, you can’t even see the signposts with a telescope. (Which you would promptly deny anyway. “The theory of optics can’t account for this scratch on the objective lens. Show me anywhere in optics that explains scratches. Nowhere did Newton, or anyone following him, explain scratches. The whole theory is flawed, and I deny it.”) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4897 "2015-09-11T01:45:36Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > You said it in the OP, “It” being > [@Trinopus](#): > > You point to a region, and a fairly small one at that, and try to pretend it refutes global warming. Is that what the OP says? Of course not. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Atlanta breaks a century-old temperature record](http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23151205/atlanta-breaks-a-century-old-temperature-record) > > ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) - > > Atlanta’s high temperature on Thursday was only 73 degrees which is the coolest high temperature on record for August 15. > > The previous record was a high of only 77 degrees from 1908. > > The average high temperature for this time of year is 88 degrees, putting Thursday’s high 15 degrees below average. How can we know for sure that in the rest of the topic I never said “it refutes global warming”? [That one is easy](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1SKPC_enUS368&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Aboards.straightdope.com%2F%20%22refutes%20global%20warming%22). See? That only appears twice, you saying it, and [the topic from 2008](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9524835&postcount=8). In a matter of minutes this post will probably show up on that Google search, because this topic is indexed like every few minutes or something. What the hell is up with that? Did I ever sarcastically mock the wrong predictions made in the past? Of course. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Well, there is little doubt the predictions of the IPCC and the consensus and the models were right. > > [Global warming set to bring colder, snowier winters](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) > > [Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming](http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm) > > Damn you global warming. Damn you all to hell. But that does not refute global warming theory, anymore than a heat wave proves it correct. That isn’t how confidence in a theory is obtained. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Do you Conclude the planet is warming? Not just in summer, or February, or on land, but the whole thing, year-round, air, land, water and atmosphere combined? You have to be more specific, to be able to say we can have confidence in a theory. For example, quality data for the 30 year period (minimum period for climate) of 1911-1940 shows more warming than 1985-2014, but we don’t say the warming of the earlier period is global warming. If it was just “global average is warmer means global warming” **then there is no theory** , much less any causation or reason to be afraid. We have to be able to show the changes at the TOA due to greenhouse gases is causing the warming. This is a critical issue, and an important one. Physics and theory say one thing, but the observations tell us we don’t know everything, and we certainly don’t know what is going on with the NH winters. What I have said, multiple times, is that “if” the new theories are right, and the cooling trend is actually “from an enhanced greenhouse effect”, or from global warming, then the trend will continue, and we are truly fucked. Hotter summers, with much colder winters possible, that’s about the worst sort of 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:** [September 11, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4898 "2015-09-11T01:57:03Z")
Now what seems to have gone unnoticed, and it’s ironic, is the clear message, with links, provided right away in the topic. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Well, there is little doubt the predictions of the IPCC and the consensus and the models were right. > > [Global warming set to bring colder, snowier winters](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) > > [Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming](http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm) > > Damn you global warming. Damn you all to hell. First, "Well, there is little doubt the predictions of the IPCC and the consensus and the models were right. " That’s pure sarcasm, since colder winters with much more snow is the complete opposite of both theory, as well as the IPCC “projections” about the future. The two links > [@](#): > > [Global warming set to bring colder, snowier winters](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) > > [Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming](http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm) are showing that global warming is now supposed to be causing colder winters. It’s right there on the pages, things like “a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.”, and “a new study shows that global warming produces colder winters and heavier dumps of snow for large swathes of the northern hemisphere.” Then, and I know this part is hard to grasp for many, I take issue with global warming for causing the goddamn awful winters, and say “Damn you global warming. Damn you all to hell.” So right there in one post, we have three different points. 1. The IPCC was wrong as hell 2. Scientist and studies are claiming colder winters with more snow is because of global warming 3. I don’t like awful winters, so fuck you global warming See? I know I probably should have explained it better, but I assumed the reader here is intelligent and so forth ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2015, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4899 "2015-09-11T02:27:09Z")
Plants are helping glaciers _murder_ humans … ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4900 "2015-09-12T15:24:55Z")
**Our parade of horrors continues …** I’ve been fooling around and did some more of that dreaded math. I’m starting with the value of radiative forcing given by [Chandler (2010)](http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-radforce-0309) which he got from the IPCC 2007. I’m ignoring the range and just using **1.6 W m[sup]-2[/sup]**. What I want to know is how much temperatures would increase with this amount of energy being retained by the Earth using just the air and water portions. Land can neither convect nor radiate energy, and conduction is too slow to make a meaningful difference. Starting with the Earth’s mean radius of 6.4 x 10[sup]6[/sup] m: A = 4πr[sup]2[/sup] —\> A = 4π(6.4 x 10[sup]6[/sup] m)[sup]2[/sup] —\> A = 5.1 x 10[sup]14[/sup] m[sup]2[/sup] Then multiplying to find total Wattage: (5.1 x 10[sup]14[/sup] m[sup]2[/sup]) x (1.6 W m[sup]-2[/sup]) = 8.2 x 10[sup]14[/sup] W = 8.2 x 10[sup]14[/sup] J s[sup]-1[/sup] Let’s pursue this on an annual basis, so energy retained per year is: (8.2 x 10[sup]14[/sup] J s[sup]-1[/sup]) x (3.2 x 10[sup]7[/sup] s yr[sup]-1[/sup]) = 2.6 x 10 [sup]22[/sup] J yr[sup]-1[/sup] We know that energy content is proportional to temperature, and that different substances have different constants of proportionality, also known as the _heat constant_. By multiplying this heat constant by the mass of the two substances in question, we’ll get the total energy to raise the temperature one degree of each: Air, (5.1 x 10[sup]21[/sup] kg) x (1 x 10[sup]-3[/sup] J kg[sup]-1[/sup] K[sup]-1[/sup]) = 5.1 x 10[sup]18[/sup] J K[sup]-1[/sup]; Water, (1.4 x 10[sup]21[/sup] kg) x (4.2 x 10[sup]-3[/sup] J kg[sup]-1[/sup] K[sup]-1[/sup]) = 5.7 x 10 [sup]18[/sup] J K[sup]-1[/sup] Then adding so both substances have equal temperature increase: (5.1 x 10[sup]18[/sup] J K[sup]-1[/sup]) + (5.7 x 10 [sup]18[/sup] J K[sup]-1[/sup]) = 1.1 x 10 [sup]19[/sup] J K[sup]-1[/sup] uh oh … Now we divide the total energy available by how much energy per degree of temperature: (2.6 x 10 [sup]22[/sup] J yr[sup]-1[/sup]) ÷ (1.1 x 10 [sup]19[/sup] J K[sup]-1[/sup]) = 2.4 x 10[sup]3[/sup] K yr[sup]-1[/sup] So, this is horrible, the death of all life on Earth, 2,400 ºC increase _per year_. The good news I guess is that within two weeks the oceans will all start boiling off, thus the temperature will remain at 100ºC until all the water is in it’s vapor phase, which will take about 120,000 years … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=244) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=246)