# 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:** 51
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1001 "2013-12-07T21:43:53Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Although they say “no predictions”, they also offer a prediction at the end of the statement: > “The research, which appears in the June 3 issue of the British journal Nature, offers no predictions on what temperatures future winters will bring, but suggests a continuation of the current trend for three to four more decades.” That is both 14 years old and doesn’t really make any such claim as the one I said I couldn’t defend, i.e. winter y will be x degrees hotter than any before. The quote talks about trends, which I agree with. The trend is that we have been getting warmer and the models DO say that the trend will continue. Trends don’t discount dips, which is why the software I use to do forecasting actually has boundaries to show the confidence intervals in those forecasts. In other words, the trend can continue upward while having individual data points that buck the trend on occasion. I’m still waiting on evidence of a model that states that a specific winter will be hotter than the others due to humans, or a climate expert who claims that some past given winter is proof or evidence of global warming. What I have seen is people who say things like “this particular thing **might** be caused by global warming” and while I think that’s probably a reach, it’s also not really being treated as anything other than a possibility. It’s also usually conveyed to us by non-experts, who may or may not be paraphrasing the person they are citing. > [@](#): > > The only thing that I feel strongly about is that modeling complex system is very tough (I’ve done it on simpler systems and it’s tough), and therefore one should be careful about prematurely assuming an accurate model. Agreed, I have several members of my team working on various data mining initiatives, attempting to answer questions with so many variables that silver-bullet answers are not possible. While we process over 300 million rows of new data every day, we still are dealing with fewer variables than climate science, so I’m not discounting the complexity of trying to nail down specifics of what the long term effects will be. With that said, forecasting is forecasting, and doesn’t really require a large number of disparate variables. In fact, I can do it with a single one. Give me the average global temperature for the last few hundred years and I can forecast. One single metric. It’s pretty easy to see the trend. The hard part is to determine if that will continue (we typically assume so until we see a reason not to) and even harder is to predict accurately the repercussions of that trend. Most experts might agree that they will be bad, but how bad in in what way they’ll be bad requires far more than a single metric. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1002 "2013-12-07T21:47:25Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Here is one example of scientists using a NASA model and concluding warmer winters are due to gw and predicting more: > [Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model | ScienceDaily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm) > > Although they say “no predictions”, they also offer a prediction at the end of the statement: > “The research, which appears in the June 3 issue of the British journal Nature, offers no predictions on what temperatures future winters will bring, but suggests a continuation of the current trend for three to four more decades.” From the 99 SD piece, “Global mean surface temperatures have increased in the range of 0.6 to 1.2°F since the late 19th century. But **far more severe warming has taken place over wide regions of northern Eurasia, Canada and Alaska** , with temperatures averaging 7 to 10°F **warmer in the last 35 years** , according to data previously compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.” Here is a view of what they are discussing. [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg) Here it is with more smoothing [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg) You can easily see the increase from 1964-1999 Polar map [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol) That is called science. The winter trend [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1203&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol) and now, the winter trend using 1992-2013 [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol) with smoothing off [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol) You can see the difference. the 2002-2013 winter trend [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol) and with smoothing on [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol) and for the tl;dr crowd [Then](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1964&year2=1999&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol) and [now](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=pol) That’s how I know the boreal winters are trending colder over large areas of the NH ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1003 "2013-12-07T23:36:00Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > That is both 14 years old Do you think that the models were too unreliable 14 years ago to be included in this discussion? If you do then I would counter with “if we couldn’t trust the models 14 years ago, how do we know the extent to which we can trust them today?” Maybe there is a good answer to that question, but I think it’s legit. I even wonder how sure we can be of any model due to the limited data available, we only have one time line and only detailed data pretty recently. A model that perfectly predicts the past could simply be overtrained for that data and useless if conditions are different. Another point about 14 year old article: Because we are talking about climate, any predictions or trends that we can discuss at this point would have to have been made a long time ago. > [@](#): > > and doesn’t really make any such claim as the one I said I couldn’t defend, i.e. winter y will be x degrees hotter than any before. Ok, it wasn’t clear to me the specifics, I thought the issue was “warmer winters predicted but winters are trending colder”. So, although there aren’t specific temps or years in there, it seemed like the temp maps **FX** has been linking to supported the “winters trending colder” and all I had to do was find models that predicted “winters trending warmer”. > [@](#): > > The quote talks about trends, which I agree with. The trend is that we have been getting warmer and the models DO say that the trend will continue. Don’t the temp maps **FX** linked to show winter cooling trend (for some substantial regions)? > [@](#): > > Trends don’t discount dips, Of course. I’m not interested in some back and forth that talks about every little blip, but 14 years (or 10 years or whatever) seems to be entering the realm of not just a dip. Is your opinion that it’s not really valid to check accuracy until maybe 20 or 30 years due to the nature of what is being modeled? > [@](#): > > which is why the software I use to do forecasting actually has boundaries to show the confidence intervals in those forecasts. In other words, the trend can continue upward while having individual data points that buck the trend on occasion. Are you a climate scientist? If not are you modeling physical phenomenon? Just curious (I’m not a climate scientist or a scientist, just a computer dude). > [@](#): > > I’m still waiting on evidence of a model that states that a specific winter will be hotter than the others due to humans, Again, this was not my understanding of the discussion. My understanding is that we are talking about trends, not specific winters. > [@](#): > > or a climate expert who claims that some past given winter is proof or evidence of global warming. > > What I have seen is people who say things like “this particular thing **might** be caused by global warming” and while I think that’s probably a reach, it’s also not really being treated as anything other than a possibility. It’s also usually conveyed to us by non-experts, who may or may not be paraphrasing the person they are citing. Agreed, the press and laymen are not the scientists and comments from those sources should be taken with a grain of salt. > [@](#): > > Agreed, I have several members of my team working on various data mining initiatives, attempting to answer questions with so many variables that silver-bullet answers are not possible. While we process over 300 million rows of new data every day, we still are dealing with fewer variables than climate science, so I’m not discounting the complexity of trying to nail down specifics of what the long term effects will be. With that said, forecasting is forecasting, and doesn’t really require a large number of disparate variables. In fact, I can do it with a single one. Give me the average global temperature for the last few hundred years and I can forecast. One single metric. You say forecasting doesn’t really require a large number of variables, and I understand what you are saying (sometimes more detail is worse). But, accurate forecasting of a complex dynamic system would seem to require data on those variables that have a significant impact. For example, if you just used a running average global temp for the most recent few hundred years as you iterate over the last X ten’s of thousands of years, you would have substantial periods of inaccuracy. > [@](#): > > It’s pretty easy to see the trend. The hard part is to determine if that will continue (we typically assume so until we see a reason not to) and even harder is to predict accurately the repercussions of that trend. Most experts might agree that they will be bad, but how bad in in what way they’ll be bad requires far more than a single metric. Yes but that is exactly the question: how will this (possibly chaotic) dynamic system respond to current changes? That is the entire debate about the accuracy of climate models. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1004 "2013-12-08T01:03:23Z")
> [@sylmar](#): > > . > The “issue” is your making a number of unsubstantiated and misleading statements. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > . > Really? > > Are you able to provide any examples? Nope. I’m into making baseless accusations because your such a swell guy Rafty. Other than your criticizing a cite and later confessing to not having actually read it. And your claiming FX’s posting idiocy was a “response” to some other poster, when he started the thread with it. Nope. You seem on the up and up there Chuckles. Carry on ---
**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:** [December 8, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1005 "2013-12-08T02:02:00Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Yes but that is exactly the question: how will this (possibly chaotic) dynamic system respond to current changes? > > That is the entire debate about the accuracy of climate models. I’m appreciating your logic and reason. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1006 "2013-12-08T02:20:15Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That’s how I know the boreal winters are trending colder over large areas of the NH How is that inconsistent with global warming? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1007 "2013-12-08T03:03:22Z")
> [@sylmar](#): > > Nope. I’m into making baseless accusations because your such a swell guy Rafty. > > Other than your criticizing a cite and later confessing to not having actually read it. > > And your claiming FX’s posting idiocy was a “response” to some other poster, when he started the thread with it. > > Nope. You seem on the up and up there Chuckles. Carry on At this point I’m going to lower the bar on my challenge: I challenge you to post something relevant to the discussion of climate models. It doesn’t have to be reasonable or logical, all I ask is for something relevant. Once we’ve accomplished that, then we can fine tune your posting skills so the relevant items are simultaneously relevant and logical. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1008 "2013-12-08T09:18:01Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Do you think that the models were too unreliable 14 years ago to be included in this discussion? > > If you do then I would counter with “if we couldn’t trust the models 14 years ago, how do we know the extent to which we can trust them today?” Not a lack of trust, just an assumption that they are constantly improving. I know our models at work certainly do over time as we constantly find new variables that improve their accuracy (as well as ones that don’t). As the models stated that we are going to see a warming trend in the future, I certainly don’t have major issues with them, but I don’t particularly care about them either. > [@](#): > > Ok, it wasn’t clear to me the specifics, I thought the issue was “warmer winters predicted but winters are trending colder”. > > So, although there aren’t specific temps or years in there, it seemed like the temp maps **FX** has been linking to supported the “winters trending colder” and all I had to do was find models that predicted “winters trending warmer”. Trends don’t take place over a year or two. If I want to prove my point, I’m pretty sure I can find a three year model that will back up anything I wish it to. Again, I’m talking about forecasting. I can’t accurately predict anything with just a couple of data points. We have decades of extremely comprehensive data and over a century of decent data. I CAN make forecasts from that. And yet again, I’m not talking about complex models here as they are not required to simply forecast a trend. I’m focusing on the trend that we are getting warmer over time. We are, and I have yet to see any evidence that that is changing, no matter how cold it was in north Georgia on any given day. > [@](#): > > Don’t the temp maps **FX** linked to show winter cooling trend (for some substantial regions)? Not unless I start my forecast just a year or two before the time frame of those maps. If I forecast my trending models starting in December and ending in April, it would show that my company is growing at an unprecedented pace, while the reality is that while we’re growing, that particular forecast would just be reflective of the fact that we are affected by seasonality. I happen to know that for a fact specifically because my models ARE more comprehensive, not in spite of that fact. Just like long term GLOBAL temperature forecasts are far more accurate than short term ones or localized ones. > [@](#): > > Of course. I’m not interested in some back and forth that talks about every little blip, but 14 years (or 10 years or whatever) seems to be entering the realm of not just a dip. Still just a blip. We’ve had the same flattening of the trend upwards many times, such as 1965-1980, after which it continued climbing again. The peaks, valleys and plateaus mean little compared to the much longer term trend which has held for a very long time. > [@](#): > > Is your opinion that it’s not really valid to check accuracy until maybe 20 or 30 years due to the nature of what is being modeled? I’m not of the opinion that we have to wait 20 or 30 MORE years to learn anything as we have enough historical data to show the trend. If, and that’s a big if, the trend itself (not some subset thereof) starts pointing downward for a while, then I think there might be some argument to be made that the trend was a bell curve, not a race for the top. Hasn’t happened yet, but I’ll actually be very happy if it does. > [@](#): > > Are you a climate scientist? Nope. > [@](#): > > If not are you modeling physical phenomenon? I model all sorts of things, such as association rule learning, clustering and classification. Not really sure why it matters for the topic at hand, since I’m using simple forecasting to debunk FX. Forecasting is probably the simplest of the things that my team does and also the one that is easiest for our end users to grok. > [@](#): > > Just curious (I’m not a climate scientist or a scientist, just a computer dude). I’m also just a computer dude, but I happen to run a Business Intelligence group, so I have all sorts of fun tools that do a lot of complex things for me. We use them to answer previously unanswerable questions about our business. Some matched everyone’s previous understanding, some turned things on their head, but all were testable. > [@](#): > > Again, this was not my understanding of the discussion. > > My understanding is that we are talking about trends, not specific winters. You and I might be, but FX certainly isn’t. > [@](#): > > You say forecasting doesn’t really require a large number of variables, and I understand what you are saying (sometimes more detail is worse). Actually, I said (or meant to say) that it doesn’t require a large number of disparate variables. It does require a decent number of values for a given variable. I can forecast accurately with a single variable, but I need more than a couple of data points within that measure, much as I alluded to earlier with my seasonality example. > [@](#): > > But, accurate forecasting of a complex dynamic system would seem to require data on those variables that have a significant impact. Climate is an extremely complex dynamic complex system, but global temperatures are not. I’ll let the climate dudes argue about exactly why things are happening and why they have blips here and there, but I can certainly join the discussion when the topic is temperature trends over time, as that ain’t climate science. > [@](#): > > For example, if you just used a running average global temp for the most recent few hundred years as you iterate over the last X ten’s of thousands of years, you would have substantial periods of inaccuracy. If we had the last X tens of thousands of years worth of comprehensive global temperature data, I’d be arguing that we use it. The more data points of a single measure that I have, the more accurate my forecasting. Since we don’t have that, I’m happy to stick with what we do have and certainly see no reason to limit myself to a small subset of it just to make my point. That reminds me of the old deniers argument that always took 1998 as the starting point of a trend. It happened to be exceptionally warm that year, so sure, things looked great for cooling fans if you started there. The question is why start there when I have far more data to work with, data that shows the truth of the matter? > [@](#): > > Yes but that is exactly the question: how will this (possibly chaotic) dynamic system respond to current changes? > > That is the entire debate about the accuracy of climate models. As noted, I’ll leave the complex stuff to those who work with those specific models and have a better understanding of the climate. I’m simply stating that the forecasting, which anyone can understand, shows that the temperature will continue rising. That remains true even if you threw every single computer model away as well as completely ignored any evidence that humans have anything to do with this trend. The end game is that we are getting hotter and I’d rather us devote time to seeing if there is anything we can do about it. Instead, we’re too busy arguing whether it is indeed getting hotter or not, when I don’t even consider that up for debate at this time. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1009 "2013-12-08T12:03:31Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > At this point I’m going to lower the bar on my challenge: > I challenge you to post something relevant to the discussion of climate models. It doesn’t have to be reasonable or logical, all I ask is for something relevant. > > Once we’ve accomplished that, then we can fine tune your posting skills so the relevant items are simultaneously relevant and logical. Ah! So you’re the newly self appointed junior mod and seminal arbiter of this thread? I shall work diligently at finding something you consider “relevant” Chuckles. Relevant and logical… You mean something more like this? > [@RaftPeople](#): > > For some situations it does. > > For example, gang bangers are trying to hit their cross-town rivals, if they run out of gas before they get there nobody dies, but if they are driving a Prius they’re going to make that hit and have enough fuel for a clean get away. > > Although the clean getaway just saved their lives, so I think we can conclude fuel efficiency both kills people and saves people. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1010 "2013-12-08T14:38:03Z")
Note that instead of responding to single thing directly challenging his posts, DMC gishgallops off into uncharted territory. This could be overlooked if he hadn’t already posted half a dozen times being an insulting fuckbag. And then there was the really really long post he made. So once more > [@DMC](#): > > While I’m requesting cites for your claims, can you point out which models rule out having colder winters at various points in the future? > > Until you show me which models are making such predictions, I can’t really answer that. THAT sort of thing is the sort of evasion and playing dumb you will run into, when the going gets real. It’s asinine in it’s complete pretense. This sort of weaseling works if you actually think it’s in good faith. You can post source after source (like anybody really needs any in this regard), and each on will be further weaseled out of. I’ve seen it for years online, I know this game well. **Seriously, there isn’t a single thing that will make any difference**. if somebody actually believes there never was any predictions about warmer winters, nothing will convince them now. And since I have posted multiple times that this is about TRENDS, including both GISS data showing TRENDS, as well as scientific papers talking about TRENDS, at this point his idiocy of trying to say it is about SPECIFIC winters is either willful ignorance, true ignorance, or some stupid trolling. You can’t really tell sometimes. **Same for the fact that it is a key prediction of CO2 (GhG warming theory) that warming will be seen first, and fastest, in the arctic and in the boreal winters**. Don’t believe it? It’s already happened multiple times in this thread. Plus, it’s not hard at all to Google the answer, which is why it’s such an odious trick. **When you see somebody asking about that at this point** , they are either lazy or trolling. (if you actually are some innocent n00b who wandered in and seriously wants an answer, run for your life. Don’t look back. just run) **Even a clear, and unmistakable source, which speaks directly to the “objection” will be ignored.** (I’ve posted it several time in the thread already) It won’t matter, because it’s not really an inquiry, it’s not about learning. Hell, this entire post will be ignored, and it’s easy to understand why. It’s scientific, and you can’t counter science and facts with stupid insulting behavior. See? **It’s not enough that there is a succinct summary by actual researchers** , experts if you will, he has to see the models, know “which ones” are making the predictions. It’s a red herring. It’s bullshit Even so, once more. It’s the first line of the paper. \*\*The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. \*\* [Radware Bot Manager Captcha](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007) If you can’t understand that, you are either a moron, or pretending to be an idiot. While on the subject, here is another paper about the new research. [http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/article](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/article) It is quite clear in saying “ **a number of anomalously cold winters** have occurred over northern continents **along with record snowfalls** (Cattiaux et al 2010, Ghatak et al 2010, Guirguis et al 2011, Cohen et al 2012, Coumou and Rahmstorf 2012).” So when I talk about extreme cold and record snow, it’s not hard to see why. OF COURSE THE WARMERS WANT TO IGNORE THIS. Instead they will focus on other things, use semantics, obscure points, anything other than discuss the science. **It is a direct hit to one of the most published and most repeated predictions from “CO2 caused global warming”.** That anyone actually reading this topic doesn’t know this yet, that just says something about their comprehension and reading skills. Or their motives. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1011 "2013-12-08T14:41:59Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I’ll let the climate dudes argue about exactly why things are happening and why they have blips here and there, but I can certainly join the discussion when **the topic is temperature trends** over time, **as that ain’t climate science**. Seriously? You really want to claim global or NH temperature trends aren’t about climate science? (and so you know, a trend is change over time, so you don’t have to include “over time” when you talk about trends.) You post that fucking huge gish gallop, but can’t respond to single data point? I can understand the usual suspects who got nothing, but you seem somewhat intelligent. Can’t you fucking even try to look at some data? Think of the goddamn children. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1012 "2013-12-08T14:50:35Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Ok, it wasn’t clear to me the specifics, I thought the issue was "warmer winters predicted but winters are trending colder It’s obvious, but I don’t expect a true believer to respond. It’s all about throwing up smokescreens and handwaving when you reach this point. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > So, although there aren’t specific temps or years in there, it seemed like the temp maps **FX** has been linking to supported the “winters trending colder” and all I had to do was find models that predicted “winters trending warmer”. Not only is that obvious, it’s actually what I quoted from scientific papers, and showed with GISS data. Anyone who can’t grasp this is probably being deceptive at this point. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Don’t the temp maps **FX** linked to show winter cooling trend (for some substantial regions)? Obvious. They are bullshitting now, which is the usual nonsense when it gets real. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > That is the entire debate about the accuracy of climate models. I wouldn’t say it’s the entire debate, but it certainly is the one in this topic. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How is that inconsistent with global warming? Just in case you really want to know, it’s because … oh fuck it. Read the previous posts I made. It’s explained multiple times already. > [@DMC](#): > > Want to keep defending this shit You haven’t even started a debate. Try answering my direct points, instead of sloshing a ton of unrelated shit into the tiny little cesspool ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1013 "2013-12-08T15:00:24Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Just in case you really want to know, it’s because … oh fuck it. Read the previous posts I made. It’s explained multiple times already. The only thing you have explained is you are absolutely clueless about the difference between weather and climate. For instance: your cite about colder winters in North America does not contradict global warming, if summers in North America are at the same time warmer, and the average of winter and summer is warmer each year. Colder winters do not contradict warmer climate. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1014 "2013-12-08T16:10:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > For instance: your cite about colder winters in North America does not contradict global warming, if summers in North America are at the same time warmer, and the average of winter and summer is warmer each year. Colder winters do not contradict warmer climate. So all that “global warming” means to you is a climatic increase in average global surface temperatures, regardless of the cause and regardless of the amount of 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:** [December 8, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1015 "2013-12-08T17:34:27Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > For instance: your cite about colder winters in North America does not contradict global warming, if summers in North America are at the same time warmer, and the average of winter and summer is warmer each year. First, it’s not “colder winters in North America”, so you got that wrong. It is large areas of the NH (that means Northern hemisphere, NH, it’s a common usage). Second, if the summers are warmer, and the winters colder, that is not CO2 driven climate change. It certainly would be warming on a yearly trend. But looking at [the global yearly trend for 2002-2012](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol) you see a -.02 value. [The winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol) is -.17 for 2002-2012. (you see how the evidence for each sentence is actually in the sentence? That’s science.) [Here’s the land only value](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol) -.1C [Feel free to make your own plots](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/). It’s easy and it’s fun. While it’s certainly not simple, it is possible to look at trends and learn shit. Like how the winter trends oscillate, and how they effect the global temperatures. The GISS data presented here is global. If you use just the NH it is more telling by far, as the great SH oceans provide a moderating effect on global trends. The NH varies a lot more. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Colder winters do not contradict warmer climate. Priceless. You can’t get any better than that folks. If the winters get colder, that means a warmer climate. You see how this works now? Global warming can do anything, be anything. It’s a priceless look at how people actually believe. No matter how brutal and cold the NH boreal winters become, if the global yearly mean is “warm”, it means the climate is getting warmer. Which is complete horseshit of course. It’s not even close to a scientific view. What a surprise. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1016 "2013-12-08T18:15:45Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So all that “global warming” means to you is a climatic increase in average global surface temperatures, regardless of the cause and regardless of the amount of warming? I didn’t see your response before posting. That is actually what some people think. You can blame Wikipedia for some of it. And assholes like [Connolley](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=648798) for that pile of stupid. That rabid believer lost his Admin position and was banned from editing any climate articles because he was actually that bad at trying to keep science out of Wikipedia. > [@](#): > > Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. [Climate change - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) What they really think, is that the warming is human caused. They believe that most **all climate change is human driven now** , and most of the last 60 years was all human activity. Seriously, they believe this. They know it in their hearts. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1017 "2013-12-08T18:17:56Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Priceless. You can’t get any better than that folks. If the winters get colder, that means a warmer climate. People like you are beyond education. Suffice it to say you are proudly ignorant, and determined to stay that way. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1018 "2013-12-08T18:25:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That is actually what some people think. I’m not sure I would put it this way, since the implication is that such people have a reasonably clear, consistent, unambiguous idea in their head of what “global warming” means. I doubt that **fear itself** or any of the other posters in this thread who have gone against you have that level of clarity in their thinking. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1019 "2013-12-08T18:40:26Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I model all sorts of things, such as association rule learning, clustering and classification. Not really sure why it matters for the topic at hand, since I’m using simple forecasting to debunk FX. Forecasting is probably the simplest of the things that my team does and also the one that is easiest for our end users to grok. It matters because it helps to know what you understand and what you don’t understand. For example, I had a back and forth with another poster regarding climate models and predictions and he didn’t understand that future predictions imply the system is being modeled, regardless of which method of forecasting/predicting you are using. He kept responding with “it’s based on the historical data” not realizing that a future prediction based on historical data is only as accurate as the underlying model. And he didn’t seem to realize that even a simplistic method like averaging historical temps to predict the future is a model of the underlying system (and clearly incorrect in this case). > [@](#): > > I’m also just a computer dude, but I happen to run a Business Intelligence group, so I have all sorts of fun tools that do a lot of complex things for me. We use them to answer previously unanswerable questions about our business. Some matched everyone’s previous understanding, some turned things on their head, but all were testable. I’m curious which kinds of tools you are using, anything employing the deep learning NN techniques by Hinton? > [@](#): > > Climate is an extremely complex dynamic complex system, but global temperatures are not. I’ll let the climate dudes argue about exactly why things are happening and why they have blips here and there, but I can certainly join the discussion when the topic is temperature trends over time, as that ain’t climate science… > > As noted, I’ll leave the complex stuff to those who work with those specific models and have a better understanding of the climate. I’m simply stating that the forecasting, which anyone can understand, shows that the temperature will continue rising. That remains true even if you threw every single computer model away as well as completely ignored any evidence that humans have anything to do with this trend. The end game is that we are getting hotter and I’d rather us devote time to seeing if there is anything we can do about it. Instead, we’re too busy arguing whether it is indeed getting hotter or not, when I don’t even consider that up for debate at this time. I don’t think anyone is denying the data showing the warming trend over the last 100 years. (I know **FX** isn’t, he has repeatedly stated that anyone that thinks that trend doesn’t exist isn’t paying attention). I think some of the interesting questions that are being debated are: 1 - Why is there a warming trend? 2 - Is CO2 the primary contributor? 3 - Are there other more important factors? 4 - What will happen in the future? etc. Questions: 1 - You believe 10 years of plateaued warming (as is currently happening) is too short to be considered to deviate from models/predictions - how long would the plateau need to be to be considered significant? You said “not 20 or 30 more years”, so maybe 10 more years (for a total of 20) would be considered significant? 2 - You believe 10 years of winter cooling is either a blip or winter cooling doesn’t matter? If you say winter cooling doesn’t matter (with respect to modeling/understanding/predicting the future climate) then you better be prepared with some strong arguments because I don’t think that position is defendable when discussing accuracy of climate models and understanding which variables are driving the changes. ---
**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:** [December 8, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1020 "2013-12-08T18:47:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I doubt that **fear itself** or any of the other posters in this thread who have gone against you have that level of clarity in their thinking. Maybe, but I’m not going to drop down to their level. Science is my bitch, and I love her. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > People like you are beyond education. Suffice it to say you are proudly ignorant, and determined to stay that way. I didn’t think there would be any facts, science or even logic coming from you. The thing is, it doesn’t matter. All the hate, fear and idiocy of the stupid doesn’t change the facts. Not even a little. Here’s what [a twenty year trend looked like](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1952&year2=1972&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg), the cooling from 1952-1972 [The polar view](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1952&year2=1972&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol). [Parts of the NH continued to cool](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1952&year2=1978&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol) (NH DJF trend) until the eighties. But some started warming in 78, [note Alaska, China and Europe](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1952&year2=1978&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol). This was the “Coming Ice Age” scare of the seventies, and with good reason. Now the trend until 1992/2002 can be viewed as warming, either [by picking a long period](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1952&year2=2002&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol), or [a very cold start point](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1972&year2=2002&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol). Certainly that fits with the CO2 theory, drastic arctic warming, and boreal winter warming. Until you look at reality, which is why the paper mention two decades of a cooling trend. From 1992-2013 it’s evident. Even with a rise in global mean, the winter trend shows up. [Mostly Siberia](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1992&year2=2002&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol). But when you look at [the 2002-2012 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol), it become real obvious. That’s Siberia, China, Europe, large parts of the US, Alaska, even part of Africa. [Here’s the world view](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg). Parts of India, Australia (which is summer there), and Antarctica (summer there). that’s not something science can handwave away, at this point. Also, the reason that 2002 date is important, it’s when all the data sets show a flat global mean . No warming at all. [Look at the annual trends](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=2002&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg). That is the year averaged out. even that shows the trends in the areas showing winter cooling. Especially Alaska, which is seeing a huge cooling trend since 2004. WHAAAT??? You may notice the trend was positive, but that was only because we left out the oceans. [Adding them shows a global cooling trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=2002&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg) of -.02C Whoah. What the fuck? GISS shows cooling? How the fuck can this be? Everybody know we are warming! I will show you. It’s a trick. Look at [THIS MOTHERFUCKING GLOBAL WARMING!](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1972&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg) Scary shit right? [Look at the GODDAMN WINTERS!!!](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=10&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1952&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg) Frightening, ain’t it? Look at that arctic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=50) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=52)