# Is global warming falsifiable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2014, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786 "2014-05-06T07:30:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**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:** [October 10, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/281 "2014-10-10T23:44:33Z")
So, four posts, but the essential question not answered. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/282 "2014-10-11T00:10:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > So, four posts, but the essential question not answered. I’ll take obtuse ideas by FX and avoidance of the falsifications in posts #2 and #4 for $2000 Alex. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/283 "2014-10-11T01:48:15Z")
Just wanted to say that I went back to Page 1 and read the informative and excellent posts from **Sam Stone.** **GIGO** , you really should take what he says to heart. You are quite guilty of creating the incorrect binary choice he describes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/284 "2014-10-11T02:29:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Just wanted to say that I went back to Page 1 and read the informative and excellent posts from **Sam Stone.** > > **GIGO** , you really should take what he says to heart. You are quite guilty of creating the incorrect binary choice he describes. Can not do, his attempt at reducing the models climate change scientists use as if they are just “fine tuned” looks more silly the more I study this, so there is till a lot he still has to learn too. The moment he told us all that the models have a poor record then it was the moment he showed all that he is not relying on what history has shown what they are capable of. ---
**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:** [October 11, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/285 "2014-10-11T02:31:35Z")
Snipped short excerpts, but it’s worth re-reading both long posts by Sam Stone. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > It’s incontrovertible that the Earth’s temperature has been rising in the past century, and it’s almost certain that man is playing a part in that. The real questions revolve around the accuracy of future predictions and how much we should invest to try to stop or mitigate it. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Hang on, you go too far. The problem with the climate science debate is that it keeps devolving into a binary choice: Either you believe in ‘global warming’, or you’re a ‘denier’. But climate science is a huge field, and not all of the conclusions are of equal weight. > [@Smeghead](#): > > Fair enough. All I’m trying to say is that if you want to argue against currently accepted science, it needs to be done with data and rational arguments, not just yelling "what if everyone’s wrong?! . Which brings us to the ignored part of my post, no surprise there. Here is what was not even commented on, much less understood. Note that it uses logic, reason and evidence, as well as science to make a point. [Here is a look](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1965&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) at what that sort of greenhouse gas warming is theorized to look like. Drastic warming of high latitudes, during the cold season. It’s what the theory predicts. Added greenhouse gases cause warming. It’s the largest over land, in the NH, during the cold season. This is straight from the theory, and based on physics and how an enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to change things. No other cause is assumed to make the planet warm in this manner. We also have stratospheric cooling at the same time, meaning it isn’t increased solar causing the warming. This is evidence of greenhouse warming. [Here is a look at the last two decades](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). With no large volcanoes to explain it, that does not match what greenhouse warming would show. This is the very large problem for the theory, or rather some of the assumptions of the theory. To really make this clear, here is a closer look at the changes. [1965-1995, greenhouse warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1965&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the extreme winter warming, especially at high latitudes. [1995-2014 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters. And why painting everyone with the same tar brush, who disagrees with you, is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/286 "2014-10-11T02:35:55Z")
And he just repeated his silly post, FX is not even trying. I guess he is the one that is making progress and doing the wrong “binary choice”, as it was noted before, cherry picking and refusing to see that the oceans are also part of the world (and gaining more heat that in part will show up on the surface eventually) are deftly ignored by him. ---
**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:** [October 11, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/287 "2014-10-11T02:43:13Z")
Looking at the changes, in a scientific manner, using the GISS temperature analysis, is viewed by “global warmers” as denial, or something. It isn’t sure what they think, since they refuse to even look at evidence. [1965-1995, greenhouse warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1965&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the extreme winter warming, especially at high latitudes. [1995-2014 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters. If this completely unexpected trend is actually a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming theory), it means one thing. If it’s not due to increased greenhouse gases, it means something else altogether. It’s most likely a combination of multiple things (see Sam Stones commentary about this). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/288 "2014-10-11T02:48:03Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Looking at the changes, in a scientific manner, using the GISS temperature analysis, is viewed by “global warmers” as denial, or something. It isn’t sure what they think, since they refuse to even look at evidence. > > [1965-1995, greenhouse warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1965&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the extreme winter warming, especially at high latitudes. > > [1995-2014 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters. > > If this completely unexpected trend is actually a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming theory), it means one thing. If it’s not due to increased greenhouse gases, it means something else altogether. It’s most likely a combination of multiple things (see Sam Stones commentary about this). And it a gross misstatement to claim it was not seen too by the experts. Again, in past discussions even experts statisticians reported that using limited records like the 1995-2014 trend is misleading when it ignores what took place in the previous decades. And FX still ignores what is taking place in the oceans. A double cherry pick. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/289 "2014-10-11T02:57:51Z")
And it is clear that FX is still sore when NASA/GISS selected Gavin Schimdt as the new director and not him. 🙂 Doubly so when I remember how he called Schimdt a “nobody”. > **[Latest Data Shows Global Climate Continues Warming Trend](https://www.universetoday.com/108358/latest-data-shows-global-climate-continues-warming-trend/)** > > The latest statistics are in from 2013 and both NASA’s and NOAA’s measurements of global temperatures show Earth continued to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago. NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for... > [@](#): > > The latest statistics are in from 2013 and both NASA’s and NOAA’s measurements of global temperatures show Earth continued to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago. > > NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures, while NOAA – which uses a different method of analyzing temperature data – said that 2013 tied with 2003 as 4th-warmest year globally since 1880. > > “The long-term trends are very clear, and they’re not going to disappear,” said climatologist Gavin Schmidt from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). “It isn’t an error in our calculations.” > [@](#): > > Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and plays a major role in controlling changes to Earth’s climate. It occurs naturally and also is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere presently is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. > > The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year in the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, measured at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, was about 315 parts per million. This measurement peaked last year at more than 400 parts per million. > > While the world experienced relatively warm temperatures in 2013, the continental United States experienced the 42nd warmest year on record, according to GISS analysis. For some other countries, such as Australia, 2013 was the hottest year on record. > > The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea-surface temperature, and Antarctic research station measurements, taking into account station history and urban heat island effects. Software is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place from 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period functions as a baseline for the analysis. It has been 38 years since the recording of a year of cooler than average temperatures. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/290 "2014-10-11T04:03:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Can not do, his attempt at reducing the models climate change scientists use as if they are just “fine tuned” looks more silly the more I study this, so there is till a lot he still has to learn too. The moment he told us all that the models have a poor record then it was the moment he showed all that he is not relying on what history has shown what they are capable of. No, I’m quite sure you are unable to take what was said to heart. But the reason is not the one you think it is. And while I’m at it, you try to create this fantasy that the only people who can grasp the science are those who agree with you. God, that’s fucking tiring. And your constant claims that people didn’t accept as gospel a point you made pages ago, or in another thread is similarly eye-roll provoking. Do you allow—at all—that there might exist an intelligent, well informed person who understands the science as well as you do (or as well as you think you do), who might legitimately disagree with all your conclusions? Or are they all (shudder) Deniers? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/291 "2014-10-11T04:18:31Z")
Well, to be fair, if my position reflected that of the vast consensus in any given scientific field, and I was arguing with someone who obviously has no clue what they’re talking about, I might also act as though only people who agree with me grasp the science too. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/292 "2014-10-11T04:30:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well, to be fair, if my position reflected that of the vast consensus in any given scientific field, and I was arguing with someone who obviously has no clue what they’re talking about, I might also act as though only people who agree with me grasp the science too. :rolleyes: That doesn’t really answer the question I posed to him. But are of the mind that no one else on these boards understands the issue as well? If so, we disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/293 "2014-10-11T04:40:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That doesn’t really answer the question I posed to him. But are of the mind that no one else on these boards understands the issue as well? If so, we disagree. Unless someone on this board is a climate scientist, their opinion is pretty much worthless. That’s why we educate people and turn them into climate scientists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/294 "2014-10-11T04:44:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, I’m quite sure you are unable to take what was said to heart. But the reason is not the one you think it is. > > And while I’m at it, you try to create this fantasy that the only people who can grasp the science are those who agree with you. God, that’s fucking tiring. Says the one that can not identify good sources from the bad ones. I can tell you that you need better sources, but what is clear that while I do complain about sources, you only think it is a good idea to personally attack a poster with no supporting evidence. There is no good support of what Sam was trying to pull there. Not convincing at all. If is is just a fantasy it should be easy then to show where I’m wrong, in the end I rather be closer to what the scientists report rather than to be closer to a poster on the internet that just cherry picks. > [@magellan01](#): > > And your constant claims that people didn’t accept as gospel a point you made pages ago, or in another thread is similarly eye-roll provoking. Do you allow—at all—that there might exist an intelligent, well informed person who understands the science as well as you do (or as well as you think you do), who might legitimately disagree with all your conclusions? Or are they all (shudder) Deniers? As pointed before, Sam did look like like one that did show progress, but the longer it goes it is clear that he has jumped from calling people like FX as “just pushers of hot air” (yes, in previous discussions he did realise that it was bad to not make an effort to separate from groups and people that clearly are pushing for the most harmful solutions (as in doing nothing as there is no problem)) to swallowing what the scientists that are breaking bad like Judith Curry are saying. And depending on conservative groups that continue to minimise the issue are saying. The levels of contrariarism are many in this subject, the take home point here is that I do not see any effort at separating the levels of understanding that exist in this subject between guys like FX and more reasonable fellows like Sam that are still tripping on a few denier land mines out there. By not separating them, and considering them to be in the same package it only leads to a miasma of contradictions. Fine with me. My job is to show others those contradictions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/295 "2014-10-11T05:05:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Unless someone on this board is a climate scientist, their opinion is pretty much worthless. > > That’s why we educate people and turn them into climate scientists. The closest one we had has connections to modelling and is a physicist: **jshore**. He is spending more time at WUWT doing the good fight against those ignorants. Over here he has even pointed out that I do grock this issue well, and that is worth more to me than 1000 disparaging contrarians. IIRC our former member **The Bad Astronomer** that got his own TV show once and has columns in Discovery and Slate had experience in planetary climate and other astronomical issues and he is not kind with the hot air contrarians either. > **[What Global Warming? How to Lie With Data](https://slate.com/technology/2014/10/arctic-sea-ice-melt-truth-and-inevitable-denial.html)** > > First, the truth: > [@](#): > > More shenanigans: > > Ah, but that’s only the North Pole. At the South Pole, where it’s winter, Antarctica reached a record sea ice extent! It surpassed 20 million km2 for the first time on record! So much for global warming. > > The inconvenient truth: > > Part of that is actually true: Antarctic sea ice is at a record high. However, it doesn’t matter overall. That’s because Antarctica is a continent, a huge mass of land. Every year, sea ice around it comes (in winter) and goes (in summer), and over time tends to average out. > > Since Antarctica is a continent, it makes a lot more sense to see what’s happening on land, not sea, since that ice should be more permanent (or at least not as ephemeral). But what we see there isn’t good at all. > > Land ice in Antarctica is melting. Rapidly. Like, to the tune of 159 billion tons per year. In fact, West Antarctica has lost so much ice that it’s measurably changed the Earth’s gravity in that area! > Antarctic ice loss Yikes. Note that the trend is down, and accelerating. > > Diagram by NASA > > Yet even more fertilizer: > > But that’s West Antarctica. In the East, ice has actually increased! > > Sadly, no: > > That was kinda sorta true for a while but is misleading. First, warming waters around Antarctica means more moisture to create snow. Wind blows that around, and some of it fell in East Antarctica, creating mild ice increase. > > Note the word “mild.” It wasn’t nearly enough to offset the tremendous loss happening in the west. > [@](#): > > So what does this all mean? Ice loss is an obvious indicator of a warming planet. Both poles are melting, so there you go. And it’s a bigger problem than just rising sea levels (which is a very, very big problem): Northern sea ice has been shown to affect overall weather patterns. Those bone-chilling cold snaps the U.S. East Coast has seen recently, heat waves in Alaska, and more are quite possibly connected to a weakening boreal jet stream due to warmer waters in the Arctic. > > Got it? We’re destabilizing the climate system of our entire planet. We don’t know what exactly will happen as waters warm, as ice melts, as temperatures rise over years and decades. But we do know it means big changes, and we depend on the climate the way it is to support the seven billion souls on Earth, and those who will come after. > > Monkeying around with our own planet is insane. Lying about it is even worse. We need to take global warming seriously, and we need to take action. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/296 "2014-10-11T08:09:21Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Unless someone on this board is a climate scientist, their opinion is pretty much worthless. You may want to tell that to **Gigo**. I’ve made that point to him before. To no avail. ---
**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:** [October 11, 2014, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/297 "2014-10-11T12:05:18Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:293, topic:687786”] Unless someone on this board is a climate scientist, their opinion is pretty much worthless.[/QUOTE] > [@magellan01](#): > > You may want to tell that to **Gigo**. I’ve made that point to him before. To no avail. This is great debates. It’s an internet forum where people debate shit, anonymous or not, with the sub title "For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. " That somebody would try to declare everything null and void because “your opinion is worthless unless you are … (insert qualifier here)”, is about as off topic and insipid as you will see. I would report it, except the Mods would just lock the topic, which is understandable, since global warming/climate change is the perfect example of a great debates subject. It’s like in a discussion about the weather, somebody says “your opinion is worthless unless you are a trained Meteorologist”, when of course **they themselves aren’t a trained Meteorologist**. It’s a Poe. It’s incredibly funny, all the more so because they might actually mean it. Just apply the same concept to every other debate here. End of all discussion. Everybody is worthless unless they are a trained professional (insert whatever fits here) so that’s that. It’s an example of the mental state somebody must reach when they actually click on a few links to some actual science. Why does this happen? I have no idea. But it’s just a fantastic tactic in a debate to declare everybody is worthless unless they are an actual verified authority on a topic. It works even better if the person declaring that all opinions are worthless, also claims to be an actual climate scientist. Something that actually has happened before. ---
**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:** [October 11, 2014, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/298 "2014-10-11T12:11:00Z")
I can understand why somebody who is trying to convince everyone that dangerous and rapid global warming\*\* is already happening\*\*, would want to avoid the theory, and especially any evidence that seems to go directly against the theoretical predictions. [1965-1995, greenhouse warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1965&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the extreme winter warming, especially at high latitudes. Something the IPCC and all models predict must happen. [1995-2014 trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Note the opposite happening. This is why understanding the theory and the predictions matters. It’s also why the predictions are sort of being changed, in an unscientific moveing of the goalpost. If this completely unexpected trend is actually a result of an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming theory), it means one thing. If it’s not due to increased greenhouse gases, it means something else altogether. It’s most likely a combination of multiple things (see Sam Stones commentary about this). Of course the short but concise points contained in this post will be ignored. To debate them means to actually have to debate. And anything would be better than that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/299 "2014-10-11T16:01:24Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It works even better if the person declaring that all opinions are worthless, also claims to be an actual climate scientist. Something that actually has happened before. Of course before FX declared that an actual climate scientist was a “nobody” He should be more consistent, but he can not as he can not find anyone from GISS that agrees with his misleading cherry pick. It is indeed more than just an opinion when the director of GISS and many others tell us that the warming continues anyhow, and this so because of what is going on in the oceans and as pointed before there was a lot of warming going on on the poles that was missed (and FX tossed Dyson under the bus when it turned out that Dyson does agree with the warming at the poles, how ironic) and many of the latest reports show that the so called “pause” in the land surface alone (that is only about a quarter of the earth) is not really there. > **[Time to put talk of the global warming "pause" on permanent hiatus](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140915205551-5514956-time-to-put-talk-of-the-global-warming-pause-on-permanent-hiatus)** > > No, global warming hasn’t “paused.” It hasn’t stopped. > [@](#): > > Another contributor to the apparent “pause” is a data artifact. Gaps in the weather station network used to collect temperature data exist in the polar regions and parts of Africa. We know surface temperature in the Arctic is rising faster than the rest of the world ([http://bit.ly/YJa8kO](http://bit.ly/YJa8kO)). The under-representation of polar data produces a cooling bias in the calculation of global average surface temperature. Gavin Schmidt explains how a team of scientists filled in the gaps using statistical techniques and satellite data ([RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half](http://bit.ly/1lAHwjX)). The scientists found filling in the data gaps accounted for nearly half the difference between the observed temperature and modeled simulations. > > When the data gaps and solar, volcanic, and ocean data are all accounted for, the models accurately simulate the observed global average surface temperature rise over the period since 1997. > > In sum, science reveals there has been no pause in the energy imbalance accumulating in the climate system on whole since 1997. Short-term, unpredictable variations in internal and external forcings account for a portion of the apparent slowdown in surface temperature rise. Gaps in weather station data, particularly from the rapidly warming Arctic, account for the remainder. The majority of excess heat has been taken up by the oceans. When the models are updated with the gap data and short-term forcing variations, they accurately simulate the observed surface temperature change since 1997. Borrowing Gavin Schmidt’s terminology, the models are in fact skillful ([http://bit.ly/1wlnyy4](http://bit.ly/1wlnyy4); see also “Well-estimated global warming by climate models” by Stephen Lewandowsky: [Warning! | There might be a problem with the requested link](http://bit.ly/1uD6ljx)). > > This exercise in examining the “pause” is emblematic of how science works. We started with the curious observation of an apparent slowing in global surface temperature rise. Scientists undertook to discover an explanation for it, and they succeeded. Now, we have a fuller understanding of the climate picture over the past decade and a half. We know that global warming has not slowed or stopped. Understanding the physics of the global energy imbalance, we can reasonably expect it not only to continue, but when the Pacific ENSO switches from negative to positive phase and the current Atlantic heat uptake cycle switches ([http://bit.ly/1sUG2FP](http://bit.ly/1sUG2FP)), as they invariably will at some point, we can expect surface temperature rise to accelerate. FXmastermind only tars himself by repeating the same tired misleading cherry picked point. > **[AP Demolishes Latest Climate Skeptics Talking Point](https://www.texasobserver.org/ap-demolishes-latest-climate-skeptics-talking-point/)** > > One of the more popular notions currently circulating among global warming skeptics is that the Earth has entered a cooling phase. The “theory” is based on a dishonest and faulty reading of temperature data from the last decade. This week, the AP... > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. > > Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press. > > The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs? > > In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. > > “If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend. > > > > ``` > > “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.” > > > > ``` > > What I especially like about this approach is that the reporter avoids politicizing the analysis by submitting “blind” data to the statisticians. That way, the analysts have only raw data to work with and no one can accuse them of reaching conclusions based on desired outcomes. > > This is in marked contrast to the climate denialist camp: Their whole point is to “debunk” global warming; **they’ll twist and distort information until they can get the conclusion they want.** ---
**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:** [October 11, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/300 "2014-10-11T16:44:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I can understand why somebody who is trying to convince everyone that dangerous and rapid global warming\*\* is already happening\*\*, would want to avoid the theory, and especially any evidence that seems to go directly against the theoretical predictions. It’s seen clearly in the last few posts here. Instead of responding to what is clearly evident, the only response is either “unless you are a climate scientist”, or some cut and paste of unrelated issues, everything but a discussion of the scientific based point, backed by evidence that can’t be handwaved away. Fascinating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=16)