# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/621 "2013-09-19T20:17:08Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > […] you use a computer to “prove” shit. Correct. If you don’t believe that computer models can accurately simulate and predict physical conditions **even in situations that humans haven’t already directly experienced** , then you must be absolutely shocked, _SHOCKED_ at the fact that NASA managed to successfully land unmanned rovers on Mars. “They didn’t actually go to Mars and experiment with landing techniques there, they just plugged data into a computer! It’s all a hoax, I tells ya! Mars missions are a goddamn religion!” [/ **FXMastermind**"Cognitive"Processes] ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/622 "2013-09-19T21:58:14Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Absolute bullshit. Willful ignorance? Or just the consequences of not looking at science, but spewing forth bullshit from blogs? > > Who knows? Who even cares? Please refute my statement in a proper manner. Merely gainsaying me makes you look somewhat incapable of actually defending your thesis (whatever that is.) Do you imagine that the PPM of atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] has not, in fact, increased from 280 to 385 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? If not, please present supporting facts that contradict this. ---
**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 19, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/623 "2013-09-19T22:13:56Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > This increased acidity is one of the primary causes for coral reef destruction. Look fucknugget, you made a huge huge claim. Back it up or admit you just repeated something you heard, and have no evidence for. That’s how it works. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/624 "2013-09-19T22:41:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Look fucknugget, you made a huge huge claim. Back it up or admit you just repeated something you heard, and have no evidence for. > > That’s how it works. No, the way it works is for him to attempt to change the subject and pretend that the dispute is whether CO2 levels have increased or not. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/625 "2013-09-19T23:56:05Z")
Excuse me, ‘gentlemen’, but you are the ones who are attempting (ever so amusingly) to refute the commonly accepted climate model. I suggest you begin to support your alternate position before even pretending that what has been presented to you by the sane members of this thread is anything other than the commonly accepted position of the vast majority of climate scientists. The average global temperature is gradually increasing. The increase is almost certainly the result of the increase in greenhouse gases that resulted from the increase in fossil fuel consumption since the Industrial Revolution. There are many effects of this increase in average global temperature and CO[sub]2[/sub] content. The effects of increased average global temperature include greater energy in weather systems leading to larger snowstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, and floods. The effects of increased CO[sub]2[/sub] content lead to ocean acidification and decreased carbonate ionization which leads to stressful conditions for many species of sea-life including corals, plankton and shellfish. Would you care to refute any of this? I daresay you will pretend that this is not your responsibility even though the data and mechanisms involved in this set of hypotheses is simple enough that even mentally challenged individuals should be able to understand them. I also posit that the reason why you and your chum find it amusing to post in this thread has very little to do with the subject at hand and much more with your ability to arouse a sense of outrage from the people here who actually think for a living. ---
**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 20, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/626 "2013-09-20T00:02:09Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > Excuse me, ‘gentlemen’, but you are the ones who are attempting (ever so amusingly) to refute the commonly accepted climate model. That is an impossible statement. Nobody has presented " the commonly accepted climate model", and in fact, the only thing close to a theory was presented by my humble self, after it became clear none of the strident voices protesting my presentation of extreme cold as global warming, were capable of such a simple feat. Speaking of, Boston just broke a very old record. Colder than ever measured before on September 17, while record snow is falling in South America. I have no trouble explaining exactly what is wrong with " the commonly accepted climate model", just as soon as anyone post a link to it, or presents it here. That nobody has, that is just icing on the comedy cake. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/627 "2013-09-20T00:21:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That is an impossible statement. Nobody has presented " the commonly accepted climate model", I agree 100%. Before we even get into who has the burden of proof, we need to know what exactly is being claimed. **Gagundathar** , what EXACTLY is the “commonly accepted climate model”? > [@](#): > > The average global temperature is gradually increasing. The increase is almost certainly the result of the increase in greenhouse gases that resulted from the increase in fossil fuel consumption since the Industrial Revolution. There are many effects of this increase in average global temperature and CO2 content. The effects of increased average global temperature include greater energy in weather systems leading to larger snowstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, and floods. The effects of increased CO2 content lead to ocean acidification and decreased carbonate ionization which leads to stressful conditions for many species of sea-life including corals, plankton and shellfish. Is this the “commonly accepted climate model”? And if so, by whom is it “commonly accepted”? ---
**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 20, 2013, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/628 "2013-09-20T00:22:30Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > No, the way it works is for him to attempt to change the subject and pretend that the dispute is whether CO2 levels have increased or not. > [@Gagundathar](#): > > The average global temperature is gradually increasing. The increase is almost certainly the result of the increase in greenhouse gases that resulted from the increase in fossil fuel consumption since the Industrial Revolution. You sure called that one. Of course if increasing CO2 leads to coral death, we would see quite simply, an experiment where the CO2 levels in salt water are increased, and we would watch the coral die. Now that would be a good scientific way to show people the danger. (and certainly there are real dangers) But instead we get a computer model claiming the coral will dissolve, which is pretty much the nonsense we get rather than actual science. ---
**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 20, 2013, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/629 "2013-09-20T00:24:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > **Gagundathar** , what EXACTLY is the “commonly accepted climate model”? Jesus H fuckchrist, you know good and damn well there will be no answer. Why do you torment the stupid so? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/630 "2013-09-20T00:30:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Jesus H fuckchrist, you know good and damn well there will be no answer. Yes, but I feel compelled to give him a chance. By the way, [here](http://www.coyoteblog.com/global_warming_climate_graphs/image061.jpg) is a graph showing strong to violent tornados in the US from 1950 to 2005. Obviously there is no upward trend. The only way to get an upward trend is to include more minor tornadoes since radar has gotten better at detecting them over the years. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/631 "2013-09-20T00:45:41Z")
Fap fap fap fap fap… Watching you beat off, FXMasterbater, while Brazilnut licks your ass is really grossing me out. You guys should start a blog or something. You know, get a fucking room. ---
**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 20, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/632 "2013-09-20T00:53:56Z")
Major troll fail there. Please try again. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/633 "2013-09-20T00:55:32Z")
It’s just stupid; let’s say there is only a 5% chance the vast majority of scientists are right about climate change it behooves us to do something. We should institute a massive switch to nuclear power, it is a much safer and cleaner technology anyway. Even if they are wrong, we would be much better off wih nuclear power plants in every city than breathing petroleum smog. Fukishima showed that the technology is safe; one of the largest earthquakes and tsunamis in history and no one died. ---
**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 20, 2013, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/634 "2013-09-20T00:57:24Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > [here](http://www.coyoteblog.com/global_warming_climate_graphs/image061.jpg) is a graph showing strong to violent tornados in the US from 1950 to 2005. Obviously there is no upward trend. > [@](#): > > Are tornadoes getting more frequent? > > The short answer is no, according to the National Weather Service, especially when it comes to more violent storms. “There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years,” the service notes. The longer answer is that more tornadoes are now reported than in years past, but that’s probably due to an increase in the number of eyes scanning for tornadoes than the number of tornadoes. “Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA’s Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by NWS personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been,” the Service explains. “This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence.” [Tornadoes in America: The Oklahoma Disaster in Context - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/tornadoes-in-america-the-oklahoma-disaster-in-context/276063/#morefrequent) ---
**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 20, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/635 "2013-09-20T01:00:10Z")
If there was a trend for tornadoes, intensity or frequency, since 1995, it would make no sense. Surface temperatures show a flat or cooling trend, with a pronounced cooling trend since 2002. If warming equated with more/stronger tornadoes, it would still mean we should see no recent increase. I’m not arguing tornadoes and temperatures, since it’s a hypothetical. I’m pointing out if there was a connection, we should see no increasing trend, since NH surface temperatures are not increasing. ---
**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 20, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/636 "2013-09-20T01:01:53Z")
Before the inevitable occurs, there is a long term warming trend, but no recent increase. In fact, large areas of the NH are showing cooling trends for the boreal winter. With increasing snow depth and snow cover for large areas. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/637 "2013-09-20T01:11:51Z")
Be all that as it may, thousands of people die each year from respiratory diseases brought on by burning petroleum. Nuclear is safe, clean, and effective. Forget about climate change, these reasons should be enough. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/638 "2013-09-20T03:33:59Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > **Gagundathar** , what EXACTLY is the “commonly accepted climate model”? It’s the set of features shared by the main Global Climate Models (GCMs) that climate scientists use in research. AFAIK, the most scientifically sophisticated of the readily available discussions of these features is in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 ([CMIP5](http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/)). The most user-friendly of them is probably Columbia’s [EdGCM](http://edgcm.columbia.edu) (Educational Global Climate Modeling) software project. The most readily accessible description of an individual mainstream climate model is probably [this summary of the GISS GCM Model II](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/): > [@](#): > > The Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II, described fully by Hansen et al. (1983), is a three-dimensional global climate model that numerically solves the physical conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and moisture as well as the equation of state. > > Model Description > The standard version of this model has a horizontal resolution of 8° latitude by 10° longitude, nine layers in the atmosphere extending to 10 mb, and two ground hydrology layers. The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations. > > Cloud particles, aerosols, and radiatively important trace gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorcarbons) are explicitly incorporated into the radiation scheme. Large-scale and convective cloud cover are predicted, and precipitation is generated whenever supersaturated conditions occur. > > Snow depth is based on a balance between snowfall, melting and sublimation. The albedo of snow is a function of both depth and age. Fresh snow has an albedo of 0.85 and ages within 50 days to a lower limit of 0.5. The sea ice parameterization is thermodynamic with no relation to wind stress or ocean currents. Below -1.6°C ice of 0.5 m thickness forms over a fractional area of the grid box and henceforth grows horizontally as needed to maintain energy balance. Surface fluxes change the ocean water and sea ice temperature in proportion to the area of a grid cell they cover. Conductive cooling occurs at the ocean/ice interface, thickening the ice if the water temperature remains at -1.6°. Sea ice melts when the ocean warms to 0°C and the SST in a grid box remains at 0°C until all ice has melted in that cell. The albedo of sea ice (snow-free) is independent of thickness and is assigned a value of 0.55 in the visible and 0.3 in the near infrared, for a spectrally weighted value of 0.45. > > Vegetation in the model plays a role in determining several surface and ground hydrology characteristics. Probably the most important of these is the surface albedo, which is divided into visible and near infrared components and is seasonally adjusted based on vegetation types. Furthermore, the assigned vegetation type determines the depth to which snow reflectivity can be masked. Hydrological characteristics of the soil are also based upon the prescribed vegetation types; the water holding capacity of the model’s two ground layers is determined by the vegetation type as is the ability of those layers to transfer water back to the atmosphere via transpiration. Nine different vegetation classes, developed by Matthews (1984) for the GISS GCM, represent major vegetation categories and the ecological/hydrological parameters which are calculated from the vegetation. Since the GISS GCM is a fractional grid model, more than one vegetation type can be assigned to each grid box. > > Sea surface temperatures (SST) are either specified from climatological input files or may be calculated using model-derived surface energy fluxes and specified ocean heat transports. The ocean heat transports vary both seasonally and regionally, but are otherwise fixed, and do not adjust to forcing changes. This mixed-layer ocean model was developed for use with the GISS GCM and is often referred to as the “Q-flux” parameterization. Full details of the Q-flux scheme are described in Russell et al. (1985), and in appendix A of Hansen et al. (1997). In brief, the convergence (divergence) at each grid cell is calculated based on the heat storage capacity of the surface ocean and the vertical energy fluxes at the air/sea interface. The annual maximum mixed-layer depth, which varies by region and season, has a global, area-weighted value of 127 meters. Vertical fluxes are derived from specified SST control runs where the specified SSTs are from climatological observations and have geographically and seasonally changing values. In the early 1990s Russell’s technique was modified slightly to use five harmonics, instead of two, in defining the seasonally-varying energy flux and upper ocean energy storage. This change improved the accuracy of the approximations in regions of seasonal sea ice formation. The technique reproduces modern ocean heat transports that are similar to those obtained by observational methods (Miller et al. 1983). By deriving vertical fluxes and upper ocean heat storage from a run with appropriate paleogeography and using SSTs based on paleotemperaure proxies, q-fluxes it provides a more self-consistent method for obtaining ocean heat transports from paleoclimate scenarios that use altered ocean basin configurations. Scientifically complex, yes. Religion, no. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/639 "2013-09-20T08:52:00Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Fap fap fap fap fap… > Watching you beat off, FXMasterbater, while Brazilnut licks your ass is really grossing me out. You guys should start a blog or something. You know, get a fucking room. Lol. i.e. you have no actual response on the substance of the point in question so you will criticize me and **Fx** for agreeing with each other on that point. Of course people on the warmist side never express agreement with each other on any points. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2013, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/640 "2013-09-20T08:53:47Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > It’s just stupid; let’s say there is only a 5% chance the vast majority of scientists are right about climate change it behooves us to do something. It depends what it means to be “right about climate change.” What EXACTLY is the position that the “vast majority of scientists” take about “climate change”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=33)