# 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:** 37
**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 21, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/722 "2014-11-21T17:38:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, in your alternative universe, a rise of 1.03 is less than a rise of .95? First, using the term “alternate universe” is not an argument, but snide and snarky. The multiple GISS maps are an obvious counter to the false claims climatecentral makes about THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, which is obvious from their “paper” on the matter. They claim winters are warming faster than any other season. The GISS data shows this is false. [The last 25 years for winter](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), can be seen in this map. [The last 25 years for summer](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) can be seen in this map > [@tomndebb](#): > > No. What you missed is that Louisiana is not “the U.S.” Nobody said anything about Louisiana, and the map shows the entire world. I’m using it to check climatecentral, and it clearly shows how they try to twist the facts, and present “winters are warming faster than any other season in the US”. Which is false. Even the 30 year trend shows this clearly. (and also shows boreal winter not warming as much as boreal summer, globally) [30 year winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [30 year summer trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [@wolfpup](#): > > So why the hell did you post graphs that were completely irrelevant to your claim? I’m not making a claim, I am debunking climatecentral, who claims winters are warming even faster, for the US. There “paper” is both false, as well as misleading. The GISS maps clearly show this. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The talking points are straight out of denialist blogs. If you know of a blog that has discussed this, especially in regards to the climatecentral paper, please link to it, or if you fear giving them traffic, send it by PM. I know of no blogs discussing either the climatecentral nonsense, or the boreal winter trends. tl;dr I used a climatecentral propoganda piece and GISS data to show how difficult it is to falsify any claims made by global warmers. In this case “winter are warming fastest in the US” The lack of any real claims makes it hard to even know what would falsify anything they claim. ---
**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 21, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/723 "2014-11-21T17:44:33Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > \*\*So the US, along with the rest of the globe, has been warming, and winters have been warming faster. \*\* Are you claiming this is something that increases our confidence in the CO2 theory? In essence, is it something that can falsify part of the theory? If winters start cooling, while summer still warm, would that falsify a prediction of the global warming theory? Will not answering make your case seem stronger or weaker? Have you seen these question on some blog anywhere? ---
**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 21, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/724 "2014-11-21T19:08:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Are you claiming this is something that increases our confidence in the CO2 theory? I’m saying – very clearly – that you were wrong. Again. As always. That should definitely affect someone’s confidence in anything you have to say about climate change, which as documented previously has never been correct about anything as far as I can recall. The numbers I posted from the NOAA NCDC corroborate what Climate Central was saying about both annual and winter warming and refute your typically supercilious claim that “They lied. It’s not true.” All the numbers I posted before, BTW, are in °F and directly comparable. (The NCDC reports US temperatures in °F and I typed °C in one place by force of habit.) If you want to have an argument about whether 0.13°F/decade is or is not equivalent to 1.3°F per century, or whether 0.19°F is or is not bigger than 0.13°F, feel free. I won’t be participating. ---
**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 21, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/725 "2014-11-21T19:18:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So why the hell did you post graphs that were completely irrelevant to your claim? Did you think that maybe no one would look at them? Once again, the claim is made by climatecentral, that the US winters are warming faster than any other season. They show several images, which don’t actually show the changes. And they cherry pick the coldest winter period to start their trend for now, which is deceptive. Checking the actual data is easy and fast with GISS, and it shows how they are trying to deceive, or more likely, how they are likely just wrong in this matter. [Winter trend for US is obviously warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1970&year2=1995&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), aside from the Pacific Northwest and a small southwest area [Winter trend is now cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), for almost all the US [Long term trend show general warming for some of the US winters](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1915&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), aside from the very obvious (and well researched) area that has not warmed, but cooled in the last 100 years ---
**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 21, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/726 "2014-11-21T21:07:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m saying – very clearly – that you were wrong. Again. As always. That should definitely affect someone’s confidence in anything you have to say about climate change, which as documented previously has never been correct about anything as far as I can recall. > > The numbers I posted from the NOAA NCDC corroborate what Climate Central was saying about both annual and winter warming and refute your typically supercilious claim that “They lied. It’s not true.” According to the NCDC [Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/) US winter trend, 1995-2014 is - 1.13F a decade. NH land trend is -.18 C And just like the US trends, summer trend for NH land is postive + .22 US summer trend + .46F a decade US winter trend - 1.13F a decade What part of that do you not understand? This is debunking the climatecentral “paper”, which claims US winters are warming faster than ever, faster than any other season. It’s just an example of how impossible it is to “falsify” anything global warming related. This is cut and dry, easy stuff, something anyone can see for themselves. The climatecentral nonsense. But notice how no matter what, the promoter of global warming insists climatecentral is right. ---
**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 21, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/727 "2014-11-21T21:27:43Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > US summer trend + .46F a decade > US winter trend - 1.13F a decade > > What part of that do you not understand? This is debunking the climatecentral “paper”, which claims US winters are warming faster than ever, faster than any other season. > > It’s just an example of how impossible it is to “falsify” anything global warming related. This is cut and dry, easy stuff, something anyone can see for themselves. The climatecentral nonsense. But notice how no matter what, the promoter of global warming insists climatecentral is right. Suspect and not scientifically legitimate as usual. > **[Statisticians reject cooling claims by global warming skeptics](https://www.nydailynews.com/2009/10/27/statisticians-reject-cooling-claims-by-global-warming-skeptics/)** > > WASHINGTON – An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming. The analysis was co… > [@](#): > > Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. > > Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers. > > Identifying a downward trend is a case of “people coming at the data with preconceived notions,” said Peterson, author of the book “Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis.” And neither from 1995. What FX did was just like the contrarians that declared that in the past that the slowdown of 1960-1970 meant that all scientists expected a cool down, that was not the case and the popular press article FX used was debunked a long time ago and also by the one who wrote it in the 70’s. Climate Central already reported that they are looking at the big picture, not the misleading short one, and with better evidence nowadays virtually all scientists expect that the earth and most of the USA will continue to get warmer after this current “pause” that ignores other seasons, other hemispheres, the oceans and the world. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/728 "2014-11-22T02:37:59Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > First, using the term “alternate universe” is not an argument, but snide and snarky. You introduced the repeated use of snide and snarky in this thread. You don’t get to complain when it is legitimatley directed toward your posts. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > No. What you missed is that Louisiana is not “the U.S.” > > Nobody said anything about Louisiana, and the map shows the entire world. And here is an example of the way in which you are persuading me that you are actually trolling. I quoted a passage from your post showing two maps followed by a claim that they demonstrated more cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in winter than in the summer. I noted that the actual stated temperature rise in the two maps showed greater rise in winter then summer. You responded, (with a fair amount of textual giggling), that I had missed the point that it was only the U.S. that you were talking about regarding the winter cooling. So I went back and looked at the maps you had selected, again. It was true that there was a specific place in the Northern Hemisphere that showed a cooling trend for winter for the period you had chosen. However, that cooling trend was specific to the valleys of the lower Mississippi and the Ohio Rivers, with the coolest location around Louisiana. I then pointed out that all the other regions of the U.S. had, according the the map that you selected, showed greater warming in the winter than in the summer. Now you are disingenuously claiming that > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nobody said anything about Louisiana, and the map shows the entire world. So you are switching in mid-stream from discussing the U.S.–a point on which you had insisted–to discussing the whole world, which would confirm my observation that you did not correctly read the numbers. In fact, however, someone did say something about Louisiana. I did. Anyone who passed third grade American geography can see that the coolest place in the Northern Hemisphere on the winter map is centered on Louisiana. That you “seem” to have missed that fact and have now jumped back and forth on whether you are discussing North America, the U.S., the world, or some fantasy universe of your own invention as if we could not read your text or view the maps, ourselves, shows a striking lack of interest in honest debate. If you continue, you will be Warned for trolling. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![EdwinAmi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5fc32e/32.png) [@EdwinAmi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwinAmi)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/729 "2014-11-24T04:46:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Whoops, we scared him away. Not really, I’m just not going to spend forever posting > [@](#): > > leaving while he was behind was the smartest You were never ahead. You guys simply strawman me by ignoring the qualifiers I include (see above, like I said, statistical methods to adjust for growing cities is bullshit when they could actually be visited, and you outright ignored I said that and just repeated your stupid statistical study) Evidence for global warming was posted, but it was the same tired old evidence which is far from conclusive. Other than that, it was claims that “every scientist beleives in global warming”, as though that’s how science works. What it boils down to is you’re (and all the people pushing global warming) acting like mild evidence is super duper strong proof, which it isn’t. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/730 "2014-11-24T05:49:50Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Not really, I’m just not going to spend forever posting Well, you wanna take a little of that “not forever” to admit you were wrong about solar cells? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/731 "2014-11-24T05:55:26Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > . . . Other than that, it was claims that “every scientist beleives in global warming”, as though that’s how science works. . . . In some cases, it is. If a scientist had evidence that was convincing, other scientists would be convinced. Consensus in science doesn’t prove the case closed or the prevailing theory correct – but, for the time being, it demonstrates that the alternatives are not viable. To revive the alternative theory, new evidence would have to be presented. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/732 "2014-11-24T06:03:04Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Not really, I’m just not going to spend forever posting You certainly didn’t spend your time not posting actually looking up evidence to back your claims. Did you come to concede all of the things that you got completely factually wrong? > [@](#): > > You were never ahead. You guys simply strawman me by ignoring the qualifiers I include That’s quite an accusation. Please explain the strawman that was created - quoting it directly would be nice - and also please show us the evidence that anything you said was correct. > [@](#): > > Evidence for global warming was posted, but it was the same tired old evidence which is far from conclusive. You posted no evidence, only a few comments, almost all of which were factually incorrect. Maybe responding “lalalala, I can’t hear you” when you are shown that, just to use one example, the cost of solar energy is considerably less than you thought works among your friends, but it won’t work here. > [@](#): > > Other than that, it was claims that “every scientist beleives in global warming”, as though that’s how science works. _“If one person says you have a tail you can probably ignore it, however, if two or three people say you do, then you better turn around and look.” (Anonymous)_ Some laypeople will defer to what a majority of experts believe when they lack the expertise themselves. It’s actually pretty smart to do so. I defer to what my auto mechanic says because I don’t know how to fix a car. When I sprained my ankle, I used the proscribed consensus from medical doctors on how to self-treat it. But you are confusing the fact that some laypeople will say “a majority of scientists believe something, therefore I agree with them” with the scientific method, which is actually the opposite of what you suggest. Something isn’t true because a majority of scientists feel it’s true. A majority of scientists believe something to be true because they have enough evidence that it is true. Maybe you came back to present some evidence that this majority of scientists are mistaken? > [@](#): > > What it boils down to is you’re (and all the people pushing global warming) acting like mild evidence is super duper strong proof, which it isn’t. Oh dear. No evidence from you, just a useless statement. You take umbrage that someone would defer to a scientist who has evidence for their beliefs - evidence that not only swayed them but a vast majority of their colleagues as well - but you seem to want the readers of this message board to just believe you? See, scientists will be happy to provide their evidence for why they believe something. In fact, they like to do it so much that they have other scientists chime in - it’s called peer review. It allows scientists to escape conformation bias or simply catch errors or maybe look at things a bit differently. Thus far in this thread, you’re long on complaints but exceedingly short on evidence. And your batting average on things you assert seems to be quite low. However, as was said before by a moderator, this thread is whether global warming is falsifiable, not about whether it is false (you do know the difference, right?) or is caused by man. So you’re not only proving yourself incapable of providing evidence for what you choose to believe, you cannot even stay on topic. ---
**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 24, 2014, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/733 "2014-11-24T06:12:06Z")
> [@EdwinAmi](#): > > Other than that, it was claims that “every scientist beleives in global warming”, as though that’s how science works. Read it again, virtually the same (or higher in the last years) percentage \*\*of supporting evidence \*\*appears in every paper published lately. When it was reported that there was also a consensus of evidence that is what we meant. So far the “evidence” you pointed out was coming from gut feelings, not supported evidence or peer reviewed. ---
**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 24, 2014, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/734 "2014-11-24T06:43:30Z")
To be specific, James L. Powell, Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology did also check the evidence presented in recent studies that investigated the consensus of the evidence. Unlike previous years, the evidence found by contrariness has allowed them to publish just 2 papers in 2012-2013 [http://www.jamespowell.org/](http://www.jamespowell.org/) > [@](#): > > I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, “global warming” and “global climate change,” [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase “climate change,” finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here or from Wikipedia Commons here. The problem for one of the papers was that numerous other reports have studied the same phenomenon and drawn different conclusions. It tries once again to blame the sun for all the warming increases observed (Everyone should notice here that the author reports that the earth is indeed warming, but unlike what many scientists have found that lone scientist thinks that the sun alone is responsible) [Schurer et al. (2013)](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2040.html) used multiple linear regression and found that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years. [And so it is for other evidence that is reported in recent Journals](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1). As Powell reported: > [@](#): > > Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. > [@](#): > > Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it. > > What can we conclude? > > 1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it. > > 2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. > > These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations. Falsification is not well handled (or found) by the expert contrarians out there. ---
**Author:** ![CheapBastid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@CheapBastid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CheapBastid)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/735 "2015-01-09T23:25:55Z")
Any insight into [‘the great pause’](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/)? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/736 "2015-01-09T23:33:43Z")
> [@CheapBastid](#): > > Any insight into [‘the great pause’](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/)? Which part? The one where we’ve seen 38 years with["anomalously high annual global temperature[s]?"](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/) Or the one where [cherries](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/23/4092966.htm)taste super good? ---
**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:** [January 9, 2015, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/737 "2015-01-09T23:42:21Z")
> [@CheapBastid](#): > > Any insight into [‘the great pause’](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/)? That it is more likely that it is a mirage: > [@](#): > > A recent blog post on RealClimate by Stefan Rahmstorf shows that when it comes to recent claims of a “pause” or “hiatus,” or even a slowdown in global surface temperature, there just isn’t any reliable evidence to back up those claims. > [@](#): > > In the above tests, we didn’t just test whether there was valid evidence of a trend change for a single start year. We did it for every possible start year from 1990 through 2008, 19 choices in all. That means that the actual p-value is much higher than the lowest individual p-value we found — it’s just too easy to get results that look “significant” when you don’t take into account that you gave yourself many chances. The conclusion is that not only is there a lack of valid evidence of a change in trend, it’s nowhere near even remotely being close. Taking that “you gave yourself multiple chances” into account is, in fact, one of the strengths of change point analysis. > > I repeat: not only is there a lack of valid evidence of a slowdown, it’s nowhere near even remotely being close. And that goes for each and every one of the 8 data sets tested. > > A hottest-on-record for 2014 will dampen the enthusiasm of those who rely on “No global warming since [insert start time here] !!!” Yet, in my opinion, this never was a real issue because there never was valid evidence, even of a slowdown, let alone a “pause” or “hiatus.” > > Based on the best estimate of the present trend, using the data from NASA GISS (as used in Rahmstorf’s post), this is what we can expect to see in upcoming years: > > giss2 > > Of course there will still be fluctuations, as there always have been. But if future temperature follows the path which really is indicated by correct statistical analysis, then yes, Earth’s temperature is about to soar. > > Does the data prove there’s been no slowdown? Of course not, that’s simply impossible to do. But the actual evidence, when subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, doesn’t pass muster. Not even close. Those who insist there definitely has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in temperature increase (which seems to include all of those who deny the danger from man-made climate change) either don’t really know what they’re doing, or — far worse — they do know what they’re doing but persist in making claims despite utter lack of evidence. > > I will predict, however, with extreme confidence, that in spite of the lack of valid evidence of any change in the trend, and even if we face rapid and extreme warming in the near future, there’ll be no “pause” or even slowdown in faulty claims about it from the usual suspects. > [@](#): > > UPDATE: [A new post at RealClimate is very relevant, and well worth the read.](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/) And really? Using _Watts Up With That_ as a source? That is like pointing to a link at _Answers in Genesis_ in a Biology discussion. ---
**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:** [January 10, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/738 "2015-01-10T00:43:56Z")
> [@CheapBastid](#): > > Any insight into [‘the great pause’](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/)? Well, it’s an article by known scheister Christopher Monckton in well-established denialist rag WUWT, so take anything stated therein with a massive grain of salt. Or, you know, stick to the actual science, reported in places like RealClimate. Seriously, this lie of a [del]15-year[/del] [del]16-year[/del] [del]17-year[/del] 18-year slow-down has been crap from the start. It’s based on phenomenally shoddy statistics work and ignorance of recent developments that show, for example, that once we include arctic measures, recent temperature trends have been extrapolated lower than they should have been, or the massive amount of heat increase in the deep ocean (indeed, it would be somewhat bizarre if global warming stopped and the oceans kept rising). But what Monckton’s doing is basically just lying with statistics. As opposed to the numerous times where he lies with… Um… [Lies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA). ---
**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:** [January 10, 2015, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/739 "2015-01-10T05:49:06Z")
It’s great to see WUWT using Christopher Monckton as an authoritative source on climate science, it definitely suits them. 😃 One might kindly say that the estimable 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a particularly eccentric representative of the extreme right and a complete scientific illiterate, and he is all those things and so much more. He’s really quite a delightful self-parody of the aristocracy and perhaps a cautionary tale against excessive inbreeding in certain branches of it. ---
**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:** [January 10, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/740 "2015-01-10T23:39:15Z")
Watts Up With That seems to be a clearinghouse for any arguments against global warming orthodoxy, without much quality control. So there is definitely stuff there that’s specious or outright incorrect. However, there is also stuff there that has been well thought out and supported with data and proper mathematics. Dismissing anything coming from there out of hand is not reasonable. You should address the merits or lack thereof of whatever the specific point is. I’ve been one of the people arguing against a ‘pause’ on the ground that annual temperature variance is high enough that over a decade or two the overall trend could be negative without disproving global warming. That said… There is also uncertainty that the models used to predict global warming are correct, and they have not earned the status of the null hypothesis. Therefore, we are analysing two possibilities that have uncertainty about them. The correct way to look at such issues is to use Bayesian inference. If the model predicts X, and the result is Y, the problem could be with the model, or it could be variance. As the ‘pause’ lengthens and becomes less likely to be pure variance (though still possible), a Bayesian approach would cast more and more doubt on the accuracy of the model. ---
**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:** [January 11, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/741 "2015-01-11T00:00:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Watts Up With That seems to be a clearinghouse for any arguments against global warming orthodoxy, without much quality control. So there is definitely stuff there that’s specious or outright incorrect. However, there is also stuff there that has been well thought out and supported with data and proper mathematics. Dismissing anything coming from there out of hand is not reasonable. You should address the merits or lack thereof of whatever the specific point is. And that was done, the dismissal came after the explanation I cited, and it also comes after hundreds of examples of terrible and bad researchers whose trash is allowed to remain in the blog. > **[Anthony Watts tries for one foot in the Hitler camp and one foot out](https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/anthony-watts-tries-for-one-foot-in.html)** > > Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories. > [@](#): > > I’ve noticed a few people expressing shock and disbelief that Anthony Watts would put up the article that Tim Ball wrote the other day. > > I don’t know why they picked out that particular one. > > Yes, it was shocking. Yes, it was not only one of the dumbest articles you’ll ever read, it was horrible. Tim Ball was basically accusing climate scientists of being Hitlers. He quoted a passage from Hitler’s writings to prove that climate science was one big con. (Yeah - weird!) He was accusing climate scientists of massive deception on a centuries-long world-wide scale, which is something that Anthony encourages his readers to believe quite often. So that’s nothing new. That is not science, only a clearinghouse for denial, and the author of the piece on the pause is Monkton, himself also accused the proponents of the science as fascists and nazis. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’ve been one of the people arguing against a ‘pause’ on the ground that annual temperature variance is high enough that over a decade or two the overall trend could be negative without disproving global warming. > > That said… There is also uncertainty that the models used to predict global warming are correct, and they have not earned the status of the null hypothesis. Therefore, we are analysing two possibilities that have uncertainty about them. The correct way to look at such issues is to use Bayesian inference. If the model predicts X, and the result is Y, the problem could be with the model, or it could be variance. As the ‘pause’ lengthens and becomes less likely to be pure variance (though still possible), a Bayesian approach would cast more and more doubt on the accuracy of the model. That is… not relevant, what the article reports is a cherry pick of the past recent observed data, this is not coming from a model but actual data. > **[RealClimate: Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/)** > > RealClimate: As the World Meteorological Organisation WMO has just announced that “The year 2014 is on track to be the warmest, or one of the warmest years on record”, it is timely to have a look at recent global temperature changes. I’m going to use... > [@](#): > > The lesson of course is to use a sufficiently long time interval, as in Fig. 1, if you want to find out something about the signal of climate change rather than about short-term “noise”. All climatologists know this and the IPCC has said so very clearly. “Climate skeptics”, on the other hand, love to pull short bits out of noisy data to claim that they somehow speak against global warming – see my 2009 Guardian article Climate sceptics confuse the public by focusing on short-term fluctuations on Björn Lomborg’s misleading claims about sea level. > > But the question the media love to debate is not: can we find a warming trend since 1998 which is outside what might be explained by natural variability? The question being debated is: is the warming since 1998 significantly less than the long-term warming trend? Significant again in the sense that the difference might not just be due to chance, to random variability? And the answer is clear: the 0.116 since 1998 is not significantly different from those 0.175 °C per decade since 1979 in this sense. Just look at the confidence intervals. This difference is well within the range expected from the short-term variability found in that time series. (Of course climatologists are also interested in understanding the physical mechanisms behind this short-term variability in global temperature, and a number of studies, including one by Grant Foster and myself, has shown that it is mostly related to El Niño / Southern Oscillation.) There simply has been no statistically significant slowdown, let alone a “pause”. > [@](#): > > In summary: that the warming since 1998 “is not significant” is completely irrelevant. This warming is real (in all global surface temperature data sets), and it is factually wrong to claim there has been no warming since 1998. There has been further warming despite the extreme cherry pick of 1998. > > What is relevant, in contrast, is that the warming since 1998 is not significantly less than the long-term warming. So while there has been a slowdown, this slowdown is not significant in the sense that it is not outside of what you expect from time to time due to year-to-year natural variability, which is always present in this time series. > > Given the warm temperature of 2014, we already see the meme emerge in the media that “the warming pause is over”. That is doubly wrong – there never was a significant pause to start with, and of course a single year couldn’t tell us whether there has been a change in trend. > > Just look at Figure 1 or Figure 4 – since the 1970s we simply are in an ongoing global warming trend which is superimposed by short-term natural variability. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786.md?page=38)