# "It's cold, so there's no global warming." Do they KNOW that's false? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 13, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421 "2011-01-13T03:27:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/221 "2011-01-20T03:41:00Z")
> [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > You’re explaining with tremendous vigor that what we’re seeing so far isn’t a cooling trend at all, which is good – and then you’re not quite going on to spell out what would be enough to count as a cooling trend. That’s right. Because, as I keep saying, it’s irrelevant to the current situation. If you recognize and agree that the existing global temperature data convincingly indicate an overall warming trend, then there’s really no point at present in trying to determine what sort and amount of **hypothetical** global temperature data would (hypothetically) convincingly indicate an overall cooling trend. If we should eventually reach a situation in the temperature record where we **disagree** about whether the data is indicating an overall warming or cooling trend, that will be a different story. Then you’ll have a point about the necessity for establishing our evidentiary criteria for exactly how much and what kind of evidence should count as convincingly determining a trend. But at present, by your own admission, we’re in agreement about the qualitative behavior of the global temperature data. So splitting hairs about counterfactuals would be merely an irrelevant distraction. And I’m sure that wasting time and energy in a climate science discussion with irrelevant distractions is entirely foreign to your purpose here. ---
**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:** [January 20, 2011, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/222 "2011-01-20T03:45:44Z")
You know, I hadn’t really pegged **The Other Waldo Pepper** as a dipshit before this thread. Live and learn I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/223 "2011-01-20T04:14:00Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > In broad strokes I agree with you, but basically I’m saying, “we know what the likely trend is, but we don’t know the size of the error bars.” > > For example, the current economic downturn has caused a fairly dramatic swing away from the curve of increasing CO2 emissions, and has decreased the rate of growth of CO2 by more than any proposed global warming legislation would have. And no one was predicting it even five years ago. Well, ISTM that that overstates the case somewhat. What you’re calling a “fairly dramatic swing” seems to be more on the order of a temporary blip. Here, for example, is a fairly standard [estimate of near-future carbon emissions back in 2006](http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1127-co2.html): > [@](#): > > “From 2000 to 2005, the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5 per cent per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than one per cent per year,” noted [Australian climate scientist Dr. Mike] Raupach. “Recent emissions seem to be near the high end of the fossil fuel use scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On our current path, it will be difficult to rein-in carbon emissions enough to stabilise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 450 ppm.” Oh, but we’ve been knocked far off that “current path” by the catastrophic economic crisis, showing the futility of attempts at prediction, right? Well, apparently not so much, according to [this November 2010 _Science Daily_ article](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101121160229.htm): > [@](#): > > In a paper published November 21 in Nature Geoscience, the authors found that despite the major financial crisis that hit the world last year, global CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel in 2009 were only 1.3 per cent below the record 2008 figures. This is less than half the drop predicted a year ago. […] > > The study projects that if economic growth proceeds as expected, global fossil fuel emissions will increase by more than 3% in 2010, approaching the high emissions growth rates observed through 2000 to 2008. So your alleged “fairly dramatic swing away from” emissions trends as predicted before 2008 currently seems to have dwindled to a fairly minor short-term dip below those predicted trends, which is already on the rebound towards the formerly estimated levels. That’s not a very convincing illustration of the futility of prediction. Think about it: the 2008 crisis is widely considered the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, and even that seems not to have put much more than a rather minor temporary dent in our emissions levels. Our ability to go on spewing more CO2 is looking fairly robust at present. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > How accurate do you think a 1910 prediction of world CO2 output in 2010 would have been? I don’t have to speculate, I **know** that such predictions were wildly inaccurate. But even more importantly, I know that they were wildly inaccurate **under** estimates. Take the predictions of greenhouse-effect formulator [Arrhenius himself](http://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2006/11/26/svante-arrhenius-co2-forecasts/): > [@](#): > > Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions at his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century. Sure, he was way off in his quantitative estimate, but his qualitative prediction was quite right; he said that human CO2 emissions would significantly increase overall, and they have, and they are. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > We can’t predict what the change will be, but we can predict that there will be massive change. Sure, but we also know that some types of change are more likely than others. It’s more likely that thirty years from now we’ll have significantly increased our CO2 emissions than that we’ll have dramatically decreased them, for example. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Now, since we don’t know what it will be, we still have to extrapolate based on what we know, and that’s what the IPCC has done. And that’s a reasonable approach to take (especially if you offer multiple competing models, which they did). But while it’s the most reasonable approach, that still doesn’t mean that it’s accurate, or likely, or even likely to be in the ballpark. So the error bars we assign to those estimates should be very, very large. Especially on the downside - there’s not much to suggest that we’ll use even more fossil fuels than we do, because we’re limited on the upside by how much there is. But there are many potentially disruptive events that could decrease CO2 emissions, perhaps by orders of magnitude. We should certainly be very generous about the size of the error bars, but I think you’re neglecting significant differences in the **probability** of different size error bars in different directions. Yes, there are hypothetical events that **could** decrease CO2 emissions by orders of magnitude in the next few decades. But they’re not very likely events. We shouldn’t get so infatuated with the admittedly limitless possibilities of chance that we overstate our ignorance about the rather more limited probabilities of realistic assessment. The near- and medium-term future is not **quite** such a crapshoot as you’re painting it. And in that future, it’s a pretty good bet that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are going to go on increasing. If we don’t like that prospect, the probabilities suggest that we need to make deliberate choices to address it, not just wait hopefully to see if the goddess Fortuna will drop a previously unimaginable sugarplum of carbon reduction into our open mouths. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/224 "2011-01-20T04:20:07Z")
Here’s something that bothers me about the Climate Change skepticism. In all other kinds of skepticism, which we generally champion around here, the phrase “correlation is not causation” can often be applied. That is, just because two events occur doesn’t mean they are connected, even if there is a common element apparently involved. Yet for the Climate Change debate, such skepticism is ridiculed. For what evidence we have, correlation is almost certainly causation. So I think it’s reasonable that there is skepticism in this debate; it’s a healthy attitude towards something where the evidence, though high in quantity, is still not conclusive. ---
**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 20, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/225 "2011-01-20T04:35:33Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Here’s something that bothers me about the Climate Change skepticism. > > In all other kinds of skepticism, which we generally champion around here, the phrase “correlation is not causation” can often be applied. That is, just because two events occur doesn’t mean they are connected, even if there is a common element apparently involved. > > Yet for the Climate Change debate, such skepticism is ridiculed. For what evidence we have, correlation is almost certainly causation. > > So I think it’s reasonable that there is skepticism in this debate; it’s a healthy attitude towards something where the evidence, though high in quantity, is still not conclusive. That is fine, can you point at the items were scientists are relying just on correlation? That is just to give you one clue why most items were you could apply the saying of “correlation is not causation” are ridiculed by now, after more than 50 years of evidence that changed the scientific consensus ([It was like herding cats](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm)) it becomes harder to maintain that scientists did not check for that. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/226 "2011-01-20T04:49:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is fine, can you point at the items were scientists are relying just on correlation? I was inspired to say this based on what Sam Stone said here: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s not _fact_ - it’s the best hypothesis. Using Occam’s razor, it is the most reasonable scientific conclusion to draw. I am led to believe that among scientists it is widely accepted that the evidence is still not conclusive, but is highly suggestive. They are still making some leaps and assumptions, in a “better to be safe than sorry” way. ---
**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 20, 2011, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/227 "2011-01-20T04:54:05Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > I was inspired to say this based on what Sam Stone said here: > > I am led to believe that among scientists it is widely accepted that the evidence is still not conclusive, but is highly suggestive. They are still making some leaps and assumptions, in a “better to be safe than sorry” way. So far, what I have seen, is that the highly suggestive items are only mentioned as possible and do not apply in the projections in the IPCC report, or other recent ones, the most high probable items with plenty of evidence and lines of research are center stage. So, still one has to insist, what are the specific items you have a beef with? Otherwise I have to assume you are only depending on the say so of mostly denier sites. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/228 "2011-01-20T05:02:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, still one has to insist, what are the specific items you have a beef with? There isn’t anything specific. It’s just that solid incontrovertible proof is thin on the ground, and there’s still a lot of gaps being filled with guesswork. I trust the scientists, and don’t trust the Media. I’m just being buffeted around with a lot of misinformation that is hard to get straight. ---
**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 20, 2011, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/229 "2011-01-20T05:07:29Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > There isn’t anything specific. It’s just that solid incontrovertible proof is thin on the ground, and there’s still a lot of gaps being filled with guesswork. > > I trust the scientists, and don’t trust the Media. I’m just being buffeted around with a lot of misinformation that is hard to get straight. Well, just remember that deniers do have an interest on pushing doubt into the public. > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/36/yLYqzIhhT6o)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. > [@](#): > > In the many responses I get to these videos, it appears that a number of people want to deny, or are not even aware, that there is a scientific foundation to the overwhelming consensus on climate change. > > In fact, the science is built on thousands of publications and many decades of observation. > > In this video we’ll go over some of the fundamental discoveries, the > basic facts that we know beyond a doubt, about global warming. > Of course, many people will never believe science, because they believe that > anything that challenges their world view, is all part of a secret, > global conspiracy. One can skip the video and look at the cites in the “more info” link. > **[10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html)** > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming?... > [@](#): > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what’s causing global warming? To answer this, here is a summary of the empirical evidence that answer this question. Many different observations find a distinct human fingerprint on climate change: ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/230 "2011-01-20T05:19:45Z")
Yup, as **Sam** said, global climate systems are extremely complicated and still very under-studied. There’s a large and rapidly increasing body of knowledge on the subject, but there are still a lot of unknowns. However, as far as I’m aware, no significant part of the existing uncertainty is generated by researchers employing the “correlation = causation” fallacy. And while I agree with you on the general advisability of skepticism concerning hypotheses that are still incompletely understood and not fully substantiated, it’s also important not to apply skepticism indiscriminately. People who insist on doubting well-established claims as well as speculative ones are not accomplishing much in the fight against ignorance. (For instance, speaking as a Democrat and a generally skeptical thinker, I think it’s quite appropriate to be skeptical about, for example, claims that Obama’s policies will produce full economic recovery this year. On the other hand, it’s pretty ridiculous to be skeptical about, say, the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii.) Skepticism about something that’s widely accepted and well substantiated by evidence is a waste of time. And that’s my problem with many of the people who call themselves “global warming skeptics”. The problem isn’t that they’re being skeptical about inconclusive and tentative parts of the science; it’s that they have no clue about what parts are inconclusive and what parts are well-supported, so they’re just indiscriminately skeptical about all of it. And then they pat themselves on the back for being such hard-headed independent thinkers who refuse to blindly follow the lead of the “Scientific Establishment”. That doesn’t qualify as a healthy attitude. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/231 "2011-01-20T05:54:36Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > I know I’ve seen reports that 2010 has been the warmest year on record. And I think it was 2005 that it had beaten. Is there some discrepancy between different sets of data where some still have 1998 as the warmest year? Or is there something else going on here? I posted a link which explains this very thoroughly (and which was soundly ignored by the person who brought up the issue in the first place, of course) in post 91. ---
**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 20, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/232 "2011-01-20T06:25:35Z")
The thing that really turned me off of many of the ‘skeptics’ of global warming was their use of the current trendline as ‘proof’ that global warming isn’t happening. As someone who understands how to interpret data like this, I could see the immediate flaw in that line of thinking. But more to the point is that they’re having their cake and eating it too - on the one hand, when the trend lines show a strong correlation, they’re the first to cry, “Correlation does not imply causation!”. But as soon as the trend line diverged a bit, they immediately switched gears and claimed that the sudden divergence of correlation was hard proof that global warming isn’t happening. I did not like that one bit. \*\*Kimstu:\*\*You’re right that I may have overstated the uncertainty of predicting the future in the short to medium term - I agree that we have a pretty good handle on what world CO2 emissions will look like in the next five or ten years. But once you get past that, the uncertainty starts to climb. It’s those 50 and 100 year predictions I have a problem with. You point out that the 1910 prediction of CO2 emissions in 2010 would have been wildly wrong on the low side. If your implication is that our error about future emissions is as likely to be too low as too high, I disagree. I think the IPCC’s high estimates of CO2 emissions are about as high as they could go, because we can already see that fossil fuels are increasing in cost and coming under increasing pressure from alternative energy sources. Also, their high estimate assumes a high world GDP growth rate, but once China and India have reached first world status I don’t see the kind of growth they have now continuing, and the recent recession would indicate that the growth rates we saw in the last two decades were unsustainable. I suspect we are going to see low growth in the developed countries for at least a decade now. Most of them are heavily in debt, barely replacing their populations, and all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Also, you mention the -1.3% CO2 output as being relatively small. But is it? The earlier prediction was for growth rates of 2.5% per year. So that’s actually a change of 3.8% from prediction. And if the economies of the west remain sluggish, there will be a compounding effect, and the annual CO2 output ten years from now will be way below the 2006 prediction. In addition, the decrease in CO2 output was WAY down in the developed countries - around 8-9% according to your link. It was only strong growth in China and India that kept the world CO2 emissions from dropping quite dramatically. If China follows us into recession, as I think is quite possible, then we’re going to see a pretty major change. A decade of CO2 emissions decreasing by 8% overall, instead of increasing by 2.5% per year, would be a major change. It would be far greater than the reduction anticipated from any proposed cap and trade schemes. The IPCC actually anticipates this kind of change, which is why they have a low-growth model. I’m thinking more of paradigm-shifting changes. For example, the cost of solar power is still decreasing, and battery technology is still improving. In the meantime, fossil fuels are becoming more expensive. There may be a ‘tipping point’ coming in a decade or two where suddenly solar, wind, and safe nuclear become more cost-effective than fossil fuels, and we could see wholesale disruptions to the power generation industry and wide-scale flight from fossil fuel. I consider this quite likely, actually. The IPCC does not account for this. Here’s an example of how shifts can happen rapidly: The Chevrolet Volt came out this year, and was considered to be a niche car that’s too expensive. The general thinking in the auto industry was that electric vehicles are still a long way away from mass adoption. But just two years after the announcement of the Volt, Nissan has brought out an all-electric car, and Ford has an all-electric focus with some pretty startling specs: 100 mile range, and a charge time from a 240v charger of 3-4 hours. That’s a very usable car. They’re aiming it at the mass market, and Best Buy will be selling charging stations. I’ve always been skeptical of all-electric cars, but I’m shocked at how fast they are getting really good. I think it’s entirely possible that in another ten years we’ll all be buying electrics, and even paying a premium for them, simply because they’re better cars for most people than the gas ones. Cheaper to operate, quieter, and clean. If we get to the point where people actually prefer electric cars on their own merits, we’ll see a paradigm shift - within one generation of autos (10-15 years or so) half the cars on the road could be electric. No one would have predicted that even five years ago. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/233 "2011-01-20T12:59:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s right. Because, as I keep saying, it’s irrelevant to the current situation. > > If you recognize and agree that the existing global temperature data convincingly indicate an overall warming trend, then there’s really no point at present in trying to determine what sort and amount of **hypothetical** global temperature data would (hypothetically) convincingly indicate an overall cooling trend. Of course there’s a point! I want to determine whether your side is making falsifiable predictions. Trying to determine what sort and amount of hypothetical global temperature data would hypothetically indicate the result in question is key to that. Look, take global warming out of it entirely; maybe it’s clouding your objectivity, or maybe it’s clouding mine; let’s consider a completely different situation and see whether we’d each still react the same way. Imagine, say, that someone posts here that no home-run hitter will ever outperform Barry Bonds – and imagine that someone replies by asking what hypothetical evidence would falsify that claim. Never mind that no one is close to the big guy’s single-season home-run record, or his career home-run record, or his record OPS benchmark, or his record number of MVP titles, or – well, part of the problem is that “outperform” is kinda vague. But even _ **if** _ it means one (or all) of the many things nobody is closing in on, I’d still want to know just what’s being asserted and just what would count against it. Or: imagine that someone posts that nothing with mass can move faster than the speed of light. Imagine, too, that someone replies by asking what would falsify that claim. Now, there’s no evidence at present that anything with mass can move faster than that speed – but IMHO, there _ **is** _ value in crisply spelling out what could hypothetically falsify that conclusion. And likewise for – well, pretty much _ **anything,** _ as far as I can tell. > [@](#): > > If we should eventually reach a situation in the temperature record where we **disagree** about whether the data is indicating an overall warming or cooling trend, that will be a different story. Then you’ll have a point about the necessity for establishing our evidentiary criteria for exactly how much and what kind of evidence should count as convincingly determining a trend. So your side shouldn’t have to define its evidentiary criteria _ **until** _ the other side says arguable evidence has arrived? You don’t see a problem with that? You don’t see any value in discussing the matter _ **before** _ the evidence comes in, such that both sides need to be impartial? Again, imagine – oh, say, a government policy we’re told will “improve quality of life”, say, or “win the space race”, or whatever. If we pin down what counts and what doesn’t before the results come in, then the results get to do all the work. If we wait _ **until** _ the results come in, then the coy side gets to win the first debate by default: _sure, we lost big on A and B and C, and, sure, we lost big on X and Y and Z – but now I’ll declare that Factor M is the all-important one._ (Or, what’s even worse: _sure, we lost big on A and B and C, and, sure, we lost big on X and Y and Z – but now I’ll declare that A isn’t the key factor, and neither is B, and neither is C, and neither is X, and neither is Y, and neither is Z._) We’ve got to set up the counterfactual _ **before** _ the evidence shows up – or else your side can _ **then** _ design a counterfactual that just so happens to vindicate your view. Imagine I tell you that America will do better at the next Olympics than we did in China. Imagine we then haul in fewer medals but more gold medals – or maybe we haul in more medals but fewer gold medals. If I get to wait _ **until** _ that situation arrives before declaring which I’d meant, I can hedge my bet by first saying, _hey, there’s no point in establishing my evidentiary criteria; the 2012 Games haven’t even started yet!_ > [@](#): > > So splitting hairs about counterfactuals would be merely an irrelevant distraction. And I’m sure that wasting time and energy in a climate science discussion with irrelevant distractions is entirely foreign to your purpose here. My primary purpose is to understand what hypothetical evidence in years to come will count for, or against, the claim in question – up to and including _what falsifiable predictions can be made before the evidence arrives,_ since waiting until the evidence _ **has** _ arrived makes it too easy to paint a target wherever the arrow didn’t happen to hit; I don’t accept that approach in any other predictive field, and I don’t want it here. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/234 "2011-01-20T13:57:10Z")
All I can say is poor **GIGObuster**. I don’t have the stomach to waste time with these threads anymore so I’ll just make one comment. **GIGObuster** is arguing the points made by the majority of climate researchers. Others are arguing from either their own ideas or something they were told by non-climate researchers. Unless you are a climate researcher, there’s no fucking way that you can argue against climate research. I don’t care if you have a science degree. You simply do not have the expertise to make an argument about this type of research unless you are doing it yourself. Sorry, that’s why we have **peer** review. And please, don’t give me the bullshit that there’s a bunch of climate researchers out there who are dissenting or that there’s a climate researcher junta who are preventing other legitimate voices in the field (or cheating). Climate research has been scrutinized and down right harassed more than any other field that I know of and they have exonerated time and again. Those who still think that there is anything to argue about have a serious information selection bias. Look, the greenhouse effect has been proposed 2 centuries ago with Arrhenius proposing human-induced CO2 emissions and global warming over a century ago. It’s not that controversial. The increased complexity in models (especially in the last 20-30 yrs) have only reinforced, not refuted, this proposal. Data, not just in temperatures, but effects on climate and ecosystems are further supporting this. This includes not just climate researchers but researchers in a wide variety of fields. A few climate scientists disagree on the amount of global warming being caused by humans but pretty much all legitimate scientists agree that there is global warming and humans are contributing. Sure, science could be wrong about everything but that’s where the field sits at the moment. Arguing against experts about something this complicated is stupid, especially when the arguments come from people with much larger conflicts of interest (fossil fuel industries or rightwing anti-government teabaggers) than any supposed conflict of interest within the scientific community. This anti-science really pisses me off. I actually had a brother-in-law mention the theory of evolution by putting air quotes around it. Air quoting the theory of evolution! So I said, you mean like the (air quote) theory of gravity? Then he comes back with, “I thought it was controversial and not all biologists agree.” WTF? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/235 "2011-01-20T16:58:40Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > All I can say is poor **GIGObuster**. I don’t have the stomach to waste time with these threads anymore so I’ll just make one comment… He certainly deserves the **SDMP Exceptional Patience Award** for continuing to supply information (with cites & everything) to the skeptics & dumbasses. (Yes, some people are just uninformed. Others pick their side because Them Liberals are on the other side.) (And, what is it with brothers-in-law? So many posts all over the board refer to the eejits their sisters married or the eejits who happen to be their wives’ brothers. I have one common-law brother-in-law & he seems just fine. So far.) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/236 "2011-01-20T18:19:20Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You point out that the 1910 prediction of CO2 emissions in 2010 would have been wildly wrong on the low side. If your implication is that our error about future emissions is as likely to be too low as too high, I disagree. It is not, so no worries. I agree that the upper bound on estimates of future anthropogenic emissions, at least within the next 50 years or so, is firmer than the theoretical lower bound. Try as we might, we simply can’t burn absolutely limitless amounts of fossil fuels, whereas it is at least theoretically possible that due to some world-changing event we could burn drastically less of them. However, for a **realistic** assessment I think the existing low estimates probably constitute a pretty firm lower bound, practically speaking. No, my point was not about the size of the error bars but about the direction of the graph. Despite all the inherent uncertainty of predicting the future, it’s still much more likely that our emissions will be increasing over the next few decades than decreasing, unless we specifically target emissions reduction as a major policy issue. Speculations about developments that **might** alter that outcome, interesting though they are, aren’t a substitute for realistic assessment of the likelihood of that outcome. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > In addition, the decrease in CO2 output was WAY down in the developed countries - around 8-9% according to your link. It was only strong growth in China and India that kept the world CO2 emissions from dropping quite dramatically. If China follows us into recession, as I think is quite possible, then we’re going to see a pretty major change. A decade of CO2 emissions decreasing by 8% overall, instead of increasing by 2.5% per year, would be a major change. But according to that same link, that appears to be a completely unrealistic take on the current emissions trend. There is no logical reason to assume that the **one-year** drop of 8% in overall CO2 emissions in developed countries in 2009 would persist for an entire decade. Hell, emissions levels are **already** starting to increase again in developed countries. Again, I think you are somewhat exaggerating the “OMG, look at this huge deviation from expected outcomes that nobody could have predicted” aspect of these data. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > There may be a ‘tipping point’ coming in a decade or two where suddenly solar, wind, and safe nuclear become more cost-effective than fossil fuels, and we could see wholesale disruptions to the power generation industry and wide-scale flight from fossil fuel. I consider this quite likely, actually. The IPCC does not account for this. I agree it would be helpful from an emissions-reduction point of view, but I don’t agree that it’s “quite likely” to occur “in a decade or two”, and apparently, neither does the IPCC. It’s well worth while to ponder possibilities for unexpected drastic change, but as I said, that shouldn’t replace realistic evaluation of what’s actually **likely** to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/237 "2011-01-20T19:10:39Z")
> [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > I want to determine whether your side is making falsifiable predictions. Oh, okay then. The answer is simple: yes, it is. [Here’s a description](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/) of some falsifiable aspects of the AGW hypothesis, and the results of testing them experimentally (in addition to all the linked material GIGObuster and others such as **DMC** have been providing for you post after post, which apparently has made little impression on you). (This summary is about five years old so it understates the amount of experimental confirmation currently available, but it looks like a pretty good overall description.) > [@](#): > > Earth science shares the full range of difficulties generic to observational sciences, in that we can carry out laboratory experiments testing individual basic physical principles making up our theories, but have only limited opportunities to conduct experiments on the collective behavior of the whole system. For the latter, we must do the best we can with those ready-made examples that Nature provides. In this regard, the situation of the Theory of Global Warming is rather similar to that of the Theory of Evolution. > > There are indeed a great many aspects of the Theory of Global Warming that are falsifiable without waiting for the next century’s climate to come upon us. There are, to start, all the laboratory tests of basic physics, such as the infrared absorption properties of CO2 and water vapor. There are also field tests of the predictions of these basic physical theories, as is done when one measure water vapor and temperature in the atmosphere, and compares the predictions of radiative transfer theory with observed infrared radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere by satellite, or at the surface by radiation sensors. One can check the evaporation formulae used in climate models against the measured evaporation at buoys in the ocean, or the predictions of cloud models against observed cloud reflectivity. Going up the scale in complexity, one can compare the predictions of the theory against observations of recent climates, and of climates of the more distant past. General circulation models encapsulate the assumptions of the theory, and provide the tool necessary for testing hypotheses in such a complex system. > > A further point regarding the positivist criterion is the the Theory of Global Warming is _productive_. The implied influence of CO2 (or methane) on climate can be, and has been, applied to the understanding of the Last Glacial Maximum, to Snowball Earth, to the Faint Young Sun, and to Cretaceous warmth. Variants apply also to Venus, Mars (present and past) and Titan. It is fair to say that this theory plays as central a role in the theory of planetary climate as the Theory of Evolution plays in biology. A relatied point is that the theory can be and has been challenged by data, and forced to adapt accordingly. This was the case in the precursor to the theory, when Tyndall discovered that minor constituents (CO2 and water vapor) dominated the greenhouse effect; the resulting adaptation of Fourier’s theory opened the way for Arrhenius to conclude that human influences on the atmosphere could change the climate. A more recent adaptation was the incorporation of aerosol effects in the late 1980′s which was forced upon the theory by the inability to explain the pattern of 20th century climate change with greenhouse gas increases alone. […] > > **To what extent is “Global Warming Theory” verified?** > > The basic physical principles upon which the Theory of Global Warming is based include the notion of interconvertibility amongst forms of energy (introduced by Fourier in his formulation of planetary energy balance), thermodynamics (air cools when it rises), thermodynamics of phase change (cold air holds less water), quantum theory (absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 and other greenhouse gases), blackbody radiation, and Newton’s laws of motion. Each of these components has passed literally thousands of tests in the laboratory. There is essentially zero uncertainty in the validity of such things, which form the basic physical underpinning of the Theory of Global Warming. If any of these parts of the theory didn’t work, neither would microwave ovens, computers, steam engines, infrared remote controls, and any number of other everyday devices. > > Tests of the collective behavior of the Earth’s climate system are somewhat harder to come by, but there has been substantial progress here as well. I would highlight the following, which is far from an exhaustive list: > > - Reproduction of the temporal and spatial pattern of 20th and 21st century warming. To be sure, models with varying assumptions about clouds and aerosols can fit the observed warming equally well, indicating that the job is not complete. However, no quantitative model based on physical principles can match the 20th century warming without incorporation of a substantial warming component from greenhouse gas increases. > > - The rapid increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases should throw the Earth’s radiation budget out of balance, because the ocean has not yet had time to warm up to restore balance. The expected imbalance has been observed. (Hansen et al. 2005) > > - The planet’s energy imbalance has implications for the pattern of subsurface ocean warming. The predicted pattern has been observed. (Discussed here.) > > - Satellite observations indicate that mid-tropospheric water vapor is indeed increasing with temperature, as the theory requires and as models predict (Discussed here).. Note that the water vapor assumption I included as part of the statement of the Theory of Global Warming is not itself built into the general circulation models used to predict climate change. It is an emergent property that is deduced from more basic assumptions made in the models. In this regard, the statement regarding the presumed behavior of water vapor amounts to a statement that the models capture the same processes governing water vapor in the real atmosphere. There is now a wealth of evidence (in the “large scale control” literature) supporting this viewpoint. > > - Melt-back of Northern Hemisphere sea ice > > - Nearly worldwide melting of mountain glaciers, many of which survived previous naturally occurring warm periods > > - The theory predicts that the stratosphere should be cooling at the same time the surface is warming. This pattern is observed. > > - The degree of cooling of the Tropics and Southern Hemisphere during the Last Glacial Maximum, for which there would be no explanation if we were to assume that current models substantially overestimate sensitivity to CO2. An interesting bit of history concerning this point is that in the 1980′s the tropical behavior in glacial times was considered an indication that models were wrong: CLIMAP data indicated little surface cooling in the tropics, while mountain snowlined data did show cooling. This led to all sorts of theories spun about exotic thermostat mechanisms and strange lapse rate behavior. In the end, it turned out that the models were right and that the CLIMAP data was wrong. Thus, in this instance, the models (based on theory) made a true prediction, which was verified after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/238 "2011-01-20T19:37:01Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Can’t argue with any of that, **Sam**. Nope. I especially wouldn’t argue with this part: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 1. **Since we know of no other mechanism** other than human industry for the amount of CO2 rise we’ve seen, we have to conclude that it’s anthropogenic in origin. Don’t worry, what you don’t know won’t hurt you. I might not argue with it even more if the word conclude was replaced with assume. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/239 "2011-01-20T19:55:08Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Don’t worry, what you don’t know won’t hurt you. I think we can all be fairly certain that you know nothing about this subject that **Sam** doesn’t (though you might well **believe** a great deal more than you know). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/240 "2011-01-20T19:58:01Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Don’t worry, what you don’t know won’t hurt you. I might not argue with it even more if the word conclude was replaced with assume. I think “conclude” in the sense of “infer from the evidence that this is the best answer” is justified here. After all, even if it’s comparatively rather complicated to explain the phenomenon of **warming** in the atmosphere, it’s much more straightforward to explain **CO2 increase** in the atmosphere, as follows: - Natural climate processes cycle carbon annually through the atmosphere and other parts of the Earth in a fairly regular and well-understood way, resulting in an approximately constant average atmospheric CO2 level of somewhat less than 300 ppm over many centuries. - For the last hundred years or so, human activities have been emitting significant amounts of previously sequestered carbon (mostly from fossil fuels) into the atmosphere in the form of additional CO2. - For the last hundred years or so, atmospheric CO2 levels have been steadily increasing, so that the current level is approaching 330 ppm (or about a 10% overall increase in atmospheric CO2 levels). - There is no known climate mechanism that would somehow act to eliminate the human-generated extra CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. - There is no known natural climate process that would account for the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 levels in the past century or so. **Conclusion:** The recent observed increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration are (at least mostly) due to human emissions of CO2 from previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. Not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, ISTM. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=13)