# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/602 "2014-11-14T11:47:24Z")
Both of you knock it off. You have made your claims. Repeating charges of falsehood against each other is simply a way to dance around the rule against accusations of lying in Great Debates. If you want to challenge each others’ points, then quote the exact error and quote the exact correction. No more personal shots. [/Moderating] ---
**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:** [November 14, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/603 "2014-11-14T14:28:08Z")
Mmm. This is being fair to a level that is unfair. 🙂 But there is a request to point at the errors that are not acknowledged, that is fair. Very recently FX did call Gavin Schmidt a nobody, and since the ones contributing to RealClimate are nobodies it follows that Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is one too. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17166687&postcount=562](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17166687&postcount=562) From the RSS database the curators and experts there pointed at this post that pointed out what the Vice President at RSS said: [Remote Sensing Systems](http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures) #595 > [@](#): > > Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought. As I said, what I’m saying is supported by the very experts he is ignoring. To that we only got accusations that I was bullshitting from the part of FX, I do not think that is ok from his part, nor that he is showing a good faith effort. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/604 "2014-11-14T18:36:53Z")
I’m no longer reading the nonsense that **FX** posts whereby he and he alone has apparently figured out that AGW isn’t a valid theory. He just posts the same utter bullshit over and over again as has been explained many times by myself and by others – I would particularly cite my posts [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17807382&postcount=302) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17812761&postcount=325) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17813399&postcount=338) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17814866&postcount=356) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17824472&postcount=395). I think it’s also worth pointing out that this isn’t the first time **FX** has seen fit to challenge the entire climate science community – he’s had several other theories about why AGW is bogus, and seems perennially and hopelessly confused about many other basics of climate science, as I noted [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17834807&postcount=472) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17843831&postcount=513), so the current batch of unscientific driveling nonsense is just the latest installment. Back here in the real world, it’s worth noting that the IPCC recently released its [Synthesis Report](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/) summarizing the three major reports of the AR5 working groups previously released – for a brief skim, [the highlights can be found here](http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_syr_headlines_en.pdf). The Pentagon also [recently released a report](http://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-report-us-military-considers-climate-change-immediate-threat-could-foster-277155) on the strategic impacts of climate change on national security. It’s encouraging that [China for the first time has agreed](http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/us-china-climate-change-agreement/) to address carbon emissions. The US committed to cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% – from levels established in 2005 – by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030. While not nearly adequate, this is a major step forward because the two countries together produce about 45% of the world’s CO2 emissions, and it’s a major step toward a meaningful international agreement at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change COP21 conference in Paris at the end of next year. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/605 "2014-11-14T18:56:05Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s encouraging that China for the first time has agreed to address carbon emissions. The US committed to cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% – from levels established in 2005 – by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030. While not nearly adequate, this is a major step forward because the two countries together produce about 45% of the world’s CO2 emissions, and it’s a major step toward a meaningful international agreement at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change COP21 conference in Paris at the end of next year. Jesus. After all the hyperbole in the media about this ‘ground breaking’ deal, someone needs to point out that the U.S. just got played by China. Again. Think about what this deal requires: The U.S. has made a hard commitment to reduce CO2 effective immediately, with reductions increasing until CO2 emissions are 26-28% lower from 2005 levels by 2025. In return, China has promised to… keep increasing CO2 levels as much as they want until 2030 - five years after the U.S. commitment is already over. And then in 2030, they’ll begin to talk about ways to reduce CO2. China plays the long game. They know that long before 2030 this ‘treaty’ will be dead - either superceded by other treaties if global warming gets worse, or rendered irrelevant by technology or other changes. We’ve been down this path with the idiotic Kyoto treaty already. A lot of countries committed to targets that they immediately violated when the bills came due. That’s why no treaty of this sort is worth the paper it’s written on unless it’s concrete, enforceable, and imposes the same time frames on both parties. The cynic in me says that Obama was willing to sign onto this terrible plan because the ultimate goal wasn’t actually to get Chinese compliance, but to find political cover for what he’s been doing through executive action anyway. ---
**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:** [November 14, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/606 "2014-11-14T19:07:31Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Jesus. After all the hyperbole in the media about this ‘ground breaking’ deal, someone needs to point out that the U.S. just got played by China. Again. Think about what this deal requires: The U.S. has made a hard commitment to reduce CO2 effective immediately, with reductions increasing until CO2 emissions are 26-28% lower from 2005 levels by 2025. In return, China has promised to… keep increasing CO2 levels as much as they want until 2030 - five years after the U.S. commitment is already over. And then in 2030, they’ll begin to talk about ways to reduce CO2. > > China plays the long game. They know that long before 2030 this ‘treaty’ will be dead - either superceded by other treaties if global warming gets worse, or rendered irrelevant by technology or other changes. We’ve been down this path with the idiotic Kyoto treaty already. A lot of countries committed to targets that they immediately violated when the bills came due. That’s why no treaty of this sort is worth the paper it’s written on unless it’s concrete, enforceable, and imposes the same time frames on both parties. > > The cynic in me says that Obama was willing to sign onto this terrible plan because the ultimate goal wasn’t actually to get Chinese compliance, but to find political cover for what he’s been doing through executive action anyway. As I told you before, you need to be careful on the spin your sources make, you get an incomplete picture. > **[Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican...](https://skepticalscience.com/fact-check-china-pledged-bigger-climate-action-than-usa.html)** > > This week, President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled a secretly negotiated agreement for both countries to slow global warming by pledging to reduce carbon pollution. Specifically, President Obama pledged that the USA would cut... > [@](#): > > Senator McConnell misunderstood the Chinese target of reaching peak carbon pollution levels by 2030 as a pledge to “do nothing.” In reality, China has been developing rapidly with hundreds of millions of citizens rising out of poverty, thus demanding more energy. Much of that demand has been met with new coal power plants; China has added one and a half times the entire US coal power plant fleet in just the past decade. As a result, Chinese carbon pollution has been rising fast. > > China could not meet its climate pledge by maintaining business-as-usual (BAU) and doing “nothing.” Quite the opposite; curbing those rising carbon emissions as China’s economy continues to grow will require substantial effort. That’s why President Xi also pledged that 20% of the country’s energy would come from low-carbon sources by 2030. > > In comparison, the United States will have a relatively easy time meeting the pledge made by President Obama. US carbon pollution is already about 10–15% below 2005 levels and falling by about 1.5% per year. Achieving the target of 26–28% emissions cuts below 2005 levels by 2025 will only require continuing the current rate at which American carbon pollution is already falling. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/607 "2014-11-14T19:15:59Z")
Is the glass half empty or half full? The agreement with China is terribly weak – as I said, even the US commitment is not nearly adequate – but it’s good to see some movement. As I’ve long said, acknowledgement of the problem is the first step in a long journey. This certainly bodes better for the upcoming UNFCCC COP21 in terms of getting India on board than if it hadn’t happened, and perhaps committing China to more. Even the symbolic value is significant – as a Canadian you might have noticed headlines like this: [U.S.-China climate deal poses special challenge for G20-bound PM](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/u-s-china-climate-deal-poses-special-challenge-for-g20-bound-pm-1.2834460) – headlines we wouldn’t be seeing, and pressure Harper wouldn’t be feeling, if the deal had not happened. There’s been a lot of chatter recently about how this puts Canada – with a somewhat disproportionate incidence of climate denialism especially in the west, because of the oil industry – in a “difficult” position – a “difficulty” that I must say is well deserved. Harper’s track record on climate and the environment is reprehensible. ETA: Also, what **Gigo** posted above. ---
**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:** [November 14, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/608 "2014-11-14T20:03:44Z")
Looking at reality, there is a serious problem with the theory, especially with CO2 levels rising higher than they have been in millions of years. [The Feb trend shows it best](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), but the entire [NH cold season shows the same trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). [NH cold season warming trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1979&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [Feb warming trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1979&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) compared to [Feb cooling trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Looking at [the longer period trend, 1979-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1979&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) is very interesting. Looking at [the even longer trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1930&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) is also good. But fuck all that, the October data is up, so we can now see that global warming has resumed again. While the [GISS 2002-2013 global trend showed slight cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), using [2014 data we can see the planet is once again getting warmer](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Good news everybody, we are all going to fry. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/609 "2014-11-14T20:47:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As I told you before, you need to be careful on the spin your sources make, you get an incomplete picture. > > [Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong](http://www.skepticalscience.com/fact-check-china-pledged-bigger-climate-action-than-usa.html) And I suggest you do the same. I could just as easily spin the tale in the other direction - the U.S. reductions that happened in the recent past were not a reflection of the new status quo, but in fact were the result of a very weak economy, high oil prices, and an increased contribution from natural gas due to fracking. Extrapolating this reduction into the future requires that all those trends continue - and they’re not going to. The economy is slowly improving, oil prices are falling, and the rate of adoption of natural gas will slow down as the low-hanging fruit is picked. On the other side, China committing to 20% non-fossil fuel energy by 2030 is really no commitment at all - there are already 21 new nuclear reactors under construction in China, along with 9 large hydro power projects already under construction and nine more hydro plants in the planning stage. Combined, those new power sources should get China to their committed target by 2030 without any other changes - and they were already planning to do it. They gave up nothing. China wasn’t doing this for global warming. It was doing it because it needs a whole lot more energy and these are the most cost-effective ways to do it. Smog is also a concern, but ultimately in China these choices are driven by cost and availability of resources, not long-term concern about the planet. So the other way to look at it is that China has signed a deal that enables them to maintain the status quo and grow their energy supply by as much as their economy demands, and in return the U.S. has promised to continue CO2 reductions that were due to one-time factors, through rapid cuts in fossil fuel power without a good energy source available to replace those decommissioned plants. This is all very much to China’s benefit for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. Which is why they agreed to it. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/610 "2014-11-14T22:49:52Z")
China and coal use [http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999](http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999) ---
**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:** [November 14, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/611 "2014-11-14T23:00:50Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And I suggest you do the same. I could just as easily spin the tale in the other direction. And that was not the point. You were wrong about China not doing anything. ---
**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:** [November 14, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/612 "2014-11-14T23:20:23Z")
I see that FX is still cherry picking. As GISS reported in their site (whose data is being abused) last September was the warmest month recorded and as they point out concentrating on just one month is not good enough. One has to look at more months and the overall thrend. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/613 "2014-11-15T02:44:57Z")
GIGO, you made a false claim, when you claimed the RSS measured the upper atmosphere, and involved balloons. You also claimed using the entire RSS/MSU data is “cherry picking”, which is horseshit. And you should know better by now. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2014, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/614 "2014-11-15T02:47:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Mmm. This is being fair to a level that is unfair. 🙂 > > . . . > > To that we only got accusations that I was bullshitting from the part of FX, I do not think that is ok from his part, nor that he is showing a good faith effort. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I see that FX is still cherry picking. As GISS reported in their site (whose data is being abused) last September was the warmest month recorded and as they point out concentrating on just one month is not good enough. One has to look at more months and the overall thrend. This is the sort of pseudo-meta debate that I have just declared off limits to you two. Point to the specific claim that he has made regarding the science that is actually wrong. Similarly: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Looking at reality, there is a serious problem with the theory, especially with CO2 levels rising higher than they have been in millions of years. > > [The Feb trend shows it best](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), but the entire [NH cold season shows the same trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > > [NH cold season warming trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1979&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [Feb warming trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1979&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) compared to [Feb cooling trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > Looking at [the longer period trend, 1979-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1979&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) is very interesting. > > Looking at [the even longer trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1930&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) is also good. > > But fuck all that, the October data is up, so we can now see that global warming has resumed again. While the [GISS 2002-2013 global trend showed slight cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), using [2014 data we can see the planet is once again getting warmer](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > > Good news everybody, we are all going to fry. This sort of nonsense in which most of the links provided support the notion that global warming is occurring, followed by a sarcastic claim that does not actually represent anyone’s opinion, is hardly an act of good faith debating. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/615 "2014-11-15T04:04:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is the sort of pseudo-meta debate that I have just declared off limits to you two. Point to the specific claim that he has made regarding the science that is actually wrong. > > Similarly: > > > [@FXMastermind](#): > > > > Looking at reality, there is a serious problem with the theory, especially with CO2 levels rising higher than they have been in millions of years. > > > > [The Feb trend shows it best](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), but the entire [NH cold season shows the same trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > > > > [NH cold season warming trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1106&year1=1979&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > [Feb warming trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1979&year2=1998&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) compared to [Feb cooling trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > > > Looking at [the longer period trend, 1979-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1979&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) is very interesting. > > > > Looking at [the even longer trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1930&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) is also good. > > > > But fuck all that, the October data is up, so we can now see that global warming has resumed again. While the [GISS 2002-2013 global trend showed slight cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), using [2014 data we can see the planet is once again getting warmer](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > > > > Good news everybody, we are all going to fry. > > This sort of nonsense in which most of the links provided support the notion that global warming is occurring, followed by a sarcastic claim that does not actually represent anyone’s opinion, is hardly an act of good faith debating. Well, thing is the specific claim is precisely the one you pointed out (that has been virtually repeated by FX about 4 or 5 times so far) where he continues to abuse the data that GISS is reporting. FX continues to ignore that NASA/GISS and many other sources he uses are telling all that their conclusions are the opposite of what FX is claiming. The whole post of his is precisely the specific claim that he has made, and it is precisely what I refer when me and many others report about his cherry picks. But then of course the request here is that I point at where this item comes from: > [@](#): > > As GISS reported in their site (whose data is being abused) last September was the warmest month recorded and as they point out concentrating on just one month is not good enough. One has to look at more months and the overall thrend. It comes from NASA/GISS here: [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201410\_gistemp/](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201410_gistemp/) > [@](#): > > The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) maintains the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), one of the most widely-cited global temperature records. To conduct this analysis, scientists at GISS use publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; from ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperatures; and from Antarctic research stations. These three data sets are analyzed to account for breaks in station records, urban heating artifacts, and the distribution of stations across the landscape. Then they are loaded into a computer program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperatures relative to the average temperature from 1951-1980. (Note: The GISTEMP analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time.) > > Since GISTEMP data is freely available on the web, scientists and journalists often download maps showing the most recent month as soon as the data becomes available. While an individual month, or even a few months, offers interesting insight into the weather, such a short time period can be a distraction from deeper discussions of climate change. Monthly and yearly temperatures are closely tied to weather, while climate scientists are more concerned with decade to century trends. > > For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980. > > “When you look at all the red in that map, there is no doubt that April through September was unusually warm in most of the world, but it’s the decadal trend that is more significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, GISS director. “Earth has experienced rapid warming in the last few decades, and the most recent decade was the warmest of all. What has happened so far in 2014 extends this ongoing trend. But in the context of climate change, it does not make sense to try to derive much meaning from a single month—or, for that matter, even a single year.” And once again what I report is supported, the cherry picks from FX (That are mostly done by looking almost only at the February months) are continuously obtained from sources that in reality are telling FX that he is constantly getting it wrong. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/616 "2014-11-15T04:28:31Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > GIGO, you made a false claim, when you claimed the RSS measured the upper atmosphere, and involved balloons. > > You also claimed using the entire RSS/MSU data is “cherry picking”, which is horseshit. And you should know better by now. And FX needs to link to what he claims then, in reality on other posts I clarified: > [@GIGObuster](#): > > **The database you picked is only limiting to the remote sensors from satellites or balloons** and that peculiar and short database usually measures just the upper atmosphere. And the dataset you used starts around 1980. Again, the bullshit is not about the data, but how it is used to distort the information. [http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature](http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, the fact is that that is not the complete record and the guys at RSS also told us that. Unlike FX they do accept that there are indeed other temperature records out there that are based on direct temperature measurements and the ones recording them have been at it for a longer period of time. > > So they do recognize the limitations, but they and others do point out that it is the anomalies where the history is: > > [RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser](http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html) > > [http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp\_anomalies/](http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/) Here it is very important to notice that FX avoided reporting on the record of the anomalies, so besides not the complete record as it is understood by climate scientists the record FX used was incomplete by not looking at the anomalies ones at RSS. Indeed, even from the start I qualified what I understood. When I refer to the complete record [I refer to the more direct and longer instrumental record](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/509983main_adjusted_annual_temperature_anomalies_final.gif), FX say so that I made a false claim needs to be taken back. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/617 "2014-11-15T18:24:58Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Both of you knock it off. I have to apologize, since somehow I did not see that post before I responded, and I am sorry. > [@tomndebb](#): > > This sort of nonsense in which most of the links provided support the notion that global warming is occurring, followed by a sarcastic claim that does not actually represent anyone’s opinion, is hardly an act of good faith debating. And again, I apologize, as I let my cynical sarcasm overcome logic and fact based science. There is no evidence that we will fry, much less all of us. (“good news everyone” is from [Futurama](http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Good_news,_everyone!), FYI, it usually means the news isn’t actually going to be good at all) The debate is over two things, the first being “Is global warming falsifiable?”, and the second being, if it’s not, shouldn’t it be ignored, as some sort of religious belief system? ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/618 "2014-11-15T21:16:17Z")
I would love it if instead of vague commentary, the exact point could be refuted, with a source and everything. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > FX continues to ignore that NASA/GISS and many other sources he uses are telling all that their conclusions are the opposite of what FX is claiming. For example, GISS takes the few polar stations and assumes the entire region north from them is as warm as the station readings. It’s a major reason why it shows much more warming than any other analysis. GISS uses no satellite or balloon data for it’s temperature data analysis, but they do use satellite data of night brightness to try and adjust for UHI effects) > [@](#): > > The current analysis uses satellite observed nightlights to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) The GISS global mean also shows the same thing the RSSMSU data shows, which is how winter cooling is happening, for the boreal winter. [Here is every February](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980.08/every:12/plot/rss/from:1980.08/every:12), both GISS (red) and RSS (blue), clearly showing the same thing. including how GISS shows some warming, while the sat data does not. RSS 1981.08 0.202 RSS 2014.08 0.161 You will be told that can be dismissed as cherry picking, because 35 years isn’t long enough to say anything about a global temperature data set, or that the satellites are no good, or you can’t actually compare then to now. Even so, using GISS allows us to ask, quite rightly, why after 35 years of global warming, Feb 1981 shows 0.37 above the mean, while Feb 2014 shows 0.43 source: [Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) That is .05 degrees C warming for the global Feb readings. 35 years of greenhouse warming. Of course that is blatant cherry picking, comparing the actual data from 1981 to 2014, and noting there has been no warming of the globe, for February The land only readings show the problem better, since the oceans and land temperatures are not behaving like the theory predicted. (land should be warming more than oceans) [Warming until 1998, then cooling](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1979.08/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:1979.08/every:12) (CRU red, RSS blue) Note the two analysis match closely. This is also confirmed by the NCDC data, which is impossible to simply link to) ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/619 "2014-11-15T21:39:14Z")
So lets use GISS anyhow, and simply destroy some of the ignorance and bad science being put forth, by those now attempting to tell you global warming is now causing colder winters, which is 100% against the global warming theory. (in essence, if the “new theory” is correct, then the old theory was wrong) [The latest opinion from the media](http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/as-the-climate-warms-it-could-actually-be-generating-more-cold-outbreaks-in-the-usa-heres-how/story-fnjwvztl-1227118716283?pg=1%23comments) > [@](#): > > So there’s your theory. **It’s extremely cold a little more often as an indirect result of the world getting warmer**. Or as Dan Pydynowski, senior meteorologist for AccuWeather told USA Today. “It’s a similar pattern. The jet stream buckles and releases Arctic air from its circulation over the North Pole. Here comes that cold air.” > > Closer to home, there’s another example of how warming can produce seemingly contradictory effects. Warmer temperatures are not only causing more snowfall in Antarctica, scientists believe, but could also be producing more sea ice. Is that actual consensus science? Who knows. It will be easy later to simply claim “the media” made up all that, if winters once again trend warmer. In essence, there is no way to falsify any of it. The obvious problem is obvious. If warming is causing the extreme winters, why didn’t we see this when the planet was warming up? Why haven’t all the winters been extreme, especially during the really warm years in the last two decades? And why is this being put forth after the fact? If it had been predicted, that is one thing. But to change directions, after something happens, and then claim it’s theory, that is woo woo science. And it’s worth looking at the TIME op ed again [Last Januaries media opinion](http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/) > [@](#): > > Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, “nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. **Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out.** That is wrong, and you can actually see this for yourself. First, and most important, let’s debunk the biggest myth there. “Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, \*\*and even faster in recent decades”. Here comes GISS to rescue us from ignorance and media lies. Or in this case, TIME, which didn’t bother to fact check the climatecentral “study”, [which they use as a source](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-are-warming-all-across-the-us-15590). Here’s the recent decades, which they claim are “warming even faster”. [2005-2014 winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2005&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [1995-2014 winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Now let’s detroy the other big lie (or rather ignorance, I don’t think the author actually knows) “Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet.” Looking at the last few decades, you know, the ones he claims are getting warmer in winter, you can clearly see the problem. [1995-2014 Feb trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Here’s the simple facts. [February is the only month that shows a negative trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1998&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) since the pause. That’s right. Even GISS shows it clearly. That one month, which is trending much colder, actually brings the annual global mean down so much, it appears flat. (the pause) Which is why I say there is no pause, all the other months show warming. But just the extreme cold for NH winters, is so extreme, so much colder, it actually makes it seem like there is no warming. And that, no doubt about it, is 100% against the global warming theory. If you have a scientific source that counters that, that shows [February is not trending colder for the last two decades](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), we would all like to see it. Here is [the global data for February, since 1998](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998.08/every:12), which matches the NCDC and GISS data ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/620 "2014-11-15T21:47:21Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Warming until 1998, then cooling](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1979.08/every:12/plot/rss-land/from:1979.08/every:12) (CRU red, RSS blue) Note the two analysis match closely. This is also confirmed by the NCDC data, which is impossible to simply link to) [http://www.woodfortrees.org/](http://www.woodfortrees.org/) > [@](#): > > Beware sharp tools > > However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility… Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it’s easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others. I can see many other personal snipes at me in the previous posts from FX, I will ignore them. The point stands, the experts at REMSS are not amused at what is being done with their database too. [http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures](http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures) > [@](#): > > Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. Ignoring the anomalies records from RSS does also lead to misunderstandings. [http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp\_anomalies/](http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/) > [@](#): > > When researching global climate changes and temperature data, you will often read about the “temperature anomaly.” That is the difference between the long-term average temperature (sometimes called a reference value) and the temperature that is actually occurring. In other words, the long-term average temperature is one that would be expected; the anomaly is the difference between what you would expect and what is happening. > > A positive anomaly means that the temperature was warmer than normal; a negative anomaly indicates that the temperature was cooler than normal. > > Why use temperature anomalies and not the actual temperature measurements? Actual temperature measurements are often difficult to gather. Some areas in the world have few temperature measurement stations (for example, remote jungles and deserts), and temperatures must be estimated over large regions. > > Using anomalies, the departure from an “average,” allows more accurate descriptions over larger areas than actual temperatures and provides a frame of reference that allows easier analysis. You will use anomalies in many of the table and graphs presented in the Data Resource Center. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/621 "2014-11-15T21:55:56Z")
> [@](#): > > In other words, the long-term average temperature is one that would be expected [http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp\_anomalies/](http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/) False, and spreads ignorance. The long term average is a period of time the analysis uses to compute an average. It does not predict anything, much less say anything like it “is one that would be expected”. The average has no predictive value, and with short period data, it may even change as another year is added to the data. (this is often done with the ice mass model, [PIOMAS](http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/), they will add the last year to the mean, which changes it’s value) For example, the GISS analysis uses 1951-1980 as the period to compute an average. Nobody expects any current year to be anywhere close to those values. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=32)