# 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:** 64
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1261 "2014-01-07T00:47:41Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nobody, not even the craziest ratspit psycho you can imagine, thinks the global climate was warmer 20,000 years ago. > > As to current course requirements, I have no idea. How about when you took Meteorology? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1262 "2014-01-07T01:37:11Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’m not trying to understand AGW. I’m trying to understand the ice/thaw cycles of the Pleistocene. I understand that astronomical effects may serve as triggers, _but the temperature changes significantly exceed the radiative effects_. Therefore _positive feedback must be in play._ I’m a bit confused by your argument. Are you saying that it is known to a reasonable degree of certainty that astronomical effects have regularly had effects which were amplified? > [@](#): > > This isn’t because it’s “exciting” :smack: . Nor is there “extremely little evidence” – that the forcing must be accomplished by positive feedback is obvious to anyone with intuition about dynamical systems. Well please explain your reasoning to me – because it’s not obvious to me. > [@](#): > > The one point where you are correct is that negative feedback mechanisms are also at work. The system is complex (something your trite “Negative feedback should be the default assumption” seems to ignore). Trite or not, it makes sense. Since you have “intuition about dynamical systems,” surely it’s occurred to you that systems which are around for a long time will tend to wander into local minima. By analogy, it’s much more common to find a loose boulder at the bottom of a valley than balanced at the top of a hill. > [@](#): > > The way that temperatures and levels of greenhouse gases track each other so exactly implies to me that there is strong positive feedback at work. HTH. Why? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1263 "2014-01-07T02:08:46Z")
“The way that temperatures and levels of greenhouse gases track each other so exactly implies to me that there is strong positive feedback at work.” This is what Uncle Cecil calls “proof by graph”. The CO2 levels plotted with average global temps are all but coincident for the past [half million years](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg). Orbital Mechanics also followed this graph. This certainly implies something is going on, and it deserves research I think. Positive Feedback Mechanism = The solar energy is absorbed by the oceans. The ocean does one of two things with this energy … it evaporates water or radiates infrared back towards space. Son of a gun, water vapor sucks up infrared like a sponge, raising it’s temperature. Well, raising temperatures causes more water to evaporate, sucking up MORE infrared, evaporating MORE water and off we go … water simply being in the atmosphere brings more water in. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1264 "2014-01-08T09:30:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Utter bullshit, and it shows a complete lack of understanding about basic Meteorology. I’m pretty skeptical of it myself, but I am willing to entertain his argument. However at this point all he has done is assert his conclusion. And assert that he has “intuition about dynamical systems.” I’d love to see the evidence and argument behind his claim, if there is any. Or if it’s just based on his “intuition about dynamical systems.” ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1265 "2014-01-08T09:35:42Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > “The way that temperatures and levels of greenhouse gases track each other so exactly implies to me that there is strong positive feedback at work.” > > This is what Uncle Cecil calls “proof by graph”. The CO2 levels plotted with average global temps are all but coincident for the past [half million years](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg). I don’t see how one can divine “strong positive feedback” just from observing that quantities tend to track each other closely. Certainly one can infer that the two quantities are related. One can reasonably hypothesize that changes in one cause changes in the other (although it’s also possible that some third factor is affecting both independently). But how do you get strong positive feedback? I’m not seeing it, but I am eager to consider **septimus** ’s argument. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1266 "2014-01-08T19:13:59Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Is there something specific in **septimus’** post that is in error? Looks all good to me. Water’s feedback mechanism is the first thing students of Meteorology are taught. Just look at the snow out there … That is [hilarious](https://www.google.com/#q=%22Water's+feedback+mechanism%22+meteorology+course). > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Now you are reduced to simple handwaving away arguments you are impotent to counter. Sad, really. Some things aren’t worth even responding to. Like blaming global warming for record cold. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Why the Arctic Is Drunk Right Now.](http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/did-global-warming-get-arctic-drunk) The problem young people face is they just don’t have any experience with how the world works. When you see something as stupid, as dishonest, and as wrong as blaming global warming for an arctic blast of epic intensity, for record cold, snow, ice and winds, an event that has happened many time before, when their was no “global warming” like there is now, when you see this, the only way you can turn a blind eye is belief. Pure belief, and a closed mind. That is a sure defense against anything, especially facts. Reality can’t make a dent against pure belief, and if you believe in global warming, nothing can change that. It’s a main reason I mock and use satire, science won’t matter, reason is useless, facts are brushed aside, it they are even read, and even when it’s colder than YOU HAVE EVER KNOWN BEFORE, the true believer instantly claims it’s global warming causing it. (it’s not) It’s rare to find such devotion, such blind belief in something, among people who post on a board about fighting ignorance. Politics would be the only thing even close to this level of rabid belief. The person who hears “the polar vortex shifted and it’s because of global warming”, and instantly repeats such complete bullshit, actually believes, they have lost their way. Once you swallow the big lie, all the little ones go down easy. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1267 "2014-01-08T19:16:54Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > How about when you took Meteorology? I never “took” it, just one of them crazy love affairs with science and weather. Hell, if I was a goddamn meteorologist I wouldn’t be posting here. The study is ongoing, as things have advanced. A lot. Like, a real lot. But I can tell ya the “old” textbooks don’t talk about some mythical water vapor feedback effect, and even a lot of current glossaries don’t even contain the term “water vapor feedback”, since that sort of talk is climate woo talk. No _real_ meteorologist is taught or thinks in terms of “water vapor feedback”, the very idea is one of them made up things that only exists inside somebodies head when programming a computer model. In the real world when it gets warmer (and it does, all the time, then gets cooler) there is no water vapor feedback like the climate moron made up. To the model maker, water vapor is a magical thing, and when it gets hot more evaporates, which makes it hotter, and more evaporates, and it gets hotter, and more evaporates, and it gets hotter and this is a feedback loop that only goes up, never down. Lets take a look at how this monstrous idea works in the land of climate fairy tales. [http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441?journalCode=energy.2](http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441?journalCode=energy.2) > [@](#): > > Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. That is a stone cold fact. The rest is assumptions, conjecture, research and complicated science shit. No really, it is very very complicated. In fact, it’s so fucking complicated I should just give up even trying to explain this. But lets at least look at some magic first. > [@](#): > > As the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, **it is centrally important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected**. To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified. Did you see that? Of course not. It’s magic. Let’s see it again. > [@](#): > > As the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected. **To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase** in a warmer world, **the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified.** How about that time? Did you catch the trick? No? Of course not, a good trick is almost impossible to see. There is a reason the extent and mechanism of how “warming” effects water vapor is not just explained there. It’s thee trick you see. It’s an unknown. There has never been an experiment done, much less a theory about water vapor and warming. The entire paper is actually about this. About how models “show” something, and a bunch of mock concerns about if they are accurate. Here’s the conclusion of the goddamn paper, in a nutshell. > [@](#): > > Models of the Earth’s climate indicate that this is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered. **Critics of this consensus have attempted to provide reasons why modeling results are overestimating the strength of this feedback**. There’s the final trick. To take the biggest uncertainty, the really big unknown, the most contentious thing there is about climate, and declare the “consensus” has decided, and the few dissenters are “critics” who can’t muster a good argument. It’s such a load of pure horseshit it would be funny if it wasn’t taxpayer money involved. ---
**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:** [January 8, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1268 "2014-01-08T20:11:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Some things aren’t worth even responding to. Like blaming global warming for record cold. Only the ignorant see any inconsistency in that. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1269 "2014-01-08T22:18:55Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Only the ignorant see any inconsistency in that. Yes, it takes a lot of education to learn that everything is consistent with the Sacred (but undefined) Theory of Global Warming. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1270 "2014-01-08T22:27:56Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I never “took” it, just one of them crazy love affairs with science and weather. Hell, if I was a goddamn meteorologist I wouldn’t be posting here. The study is ongoing, as things have advanced. A lot. Like, a real lot. But I can tell ya the “old” textbooks don’t talk about some mythical water vapor feedback effect, and even a lot of current glossaries don’t even contain the term “water vapor feedback”, since that sort of talk is climate woo talk. I’ve a feeling your textbooks are for aviators. If they were published anytime since the 50s, they should give a detailed explanation on how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied during thunderstorm formation. I’m curious as to what they cite as the energy source. The class I took required concurrent enrollment in second year Calculus, there’s just no avoiding the gradient when speaking about water vapor’s positive feedback mechanism pushing up against the various negative feedbacks … yeah, that’s where the Meteorologists are separated from the Physicists. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1271 "2014-01-08T22:30:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Yes, it takes a lot of education to learn that everything is consistent with the Sacred (but undefined) Theory of Global Warming. :rolleyes: How dare you speak against religious dogma, you DO know there’s lightning bolts involved here !!! [giggle] ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1272 "2014-01-09T00:10:48Z")
I don’t care what you believe, this is some funny shit here. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/5eDTzV6a9F4/maxresdefault.jpg "The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eDTzV6a9F4) Even better, a LOT of people will actually believe it ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1273 "2014-01-09T14:40:55Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I don’t care what you believe, this is some funny shit here. At a buck fifty-three … “The odds are we’ll be seeing more of this type of …”. The man entitled to his belief, and the American people are entitled to put him in office. The polar front is “negatively indexed”, that’s doublespeak for wavier. The math has been vetted, and it says the probabilities are increasing. But I digress … it’s fucking winter … why would cold temperatures be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1274 "2014-01-09T22:21:27Z")
What is really telling is that there is no mention (in the media) about what these 47 clowns were supposed to be doing in Antarctica. Presumably, they were studying why the ice in the southern oceans was melting (due to global warming). Yet they were frozen in by a rapidly-cooling ocean. Of course, let’s not let facts get in the way of a nice theory!😉 ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1275 "2014-01-09T22:25:56Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Presumably, they were studying why the ice in the southern oceans was melting (due to global warming). > Yet they were frozen in by a rapidly-cooling ocean. How is freezing sea ice in Antarctica inconsistent with global warming? You do know what “global” means, right? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1276 "2014-01-09T22:40:37Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How is freezing sea ice in Antarctica inconsistent with global warming? You do know what “global” means, right? ???😃 Yes, "warming"means that ice tends to “melt”. You DO know what melting means, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1277 "2014-01-09T22:53:00Z")
Is anyone taken in by this whole “Lookee here! An individual localized short term weather event proves that the entire globe’s climate is not slowly warming up over decades”?? Anyone except for the resident fools? ---
**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:** [January 9, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1278 "2014-01-09T23:12:40Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > ???😃 > Yes, "warming"means that ice tends to “melt”. > You DO know what melting means, don’t you? Global, **ralph** , global. More ice is melting than is forming. That does not mean no ice forms. Does it feel good to be deliberately ignorant? ---
**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:** [January 10, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1279 "2014-01-10T04:13:20Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > What is really telling is that there is no mention (in the media) about what these 47 clowns were supposed to be doing in Antarctica. > Presumably, they were studying why the ice in the southern oceans was melting (due to global warming). No kidding. That reminds me of when the local newscasters were talking about some “drought” here a few years back and it was sprinkling in the background. Can you believe it? Never mind that the fucking lake was 20 feet below normal, it was still sprinkling behind them. > [@](#): > > Of course, let’s not let facts get in the way of a nice theory!😉 I’d also hate for facts to actually seep into your head. Where would all of the fecal matter go? Once again, AGW doesn’t mean **ralf62iq** won’t ever have to wear his fleece onesie in PolarFuck, North Dakota, nor does it mean that next year won’t be colder than this year. I’d show you a chart with the trend, but that picture would be worth about 999 more words than you could comprehend. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2014, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1280 "2014-01-10T08:48:41Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You do know what “global” means, right? Duh, it means that any local event can only confirm the Sacred (but undefined) Theory of Global Warming – it is never evidence against the Sacred (but undefined) Theory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=63) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=65)