# "It's cold, so there's no global warming."  Do they KNOW that's false?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421>\
**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:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 21, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/261 "2011-01-21T02:45:08Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Great minds think alike, eh **Kimstu**? 😉

Here’s another cite for ya:

> **[great minds think alike - Wiktionary, the free dictionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/great_minds_think_alike)**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 21, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/262 "2011-01-21T02:55:57Z")

</div>

> [@Nadir](#):
>
> Here’s another cite for ya:
> 
> [great minds think alike - Wiktionary, the free dictionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/great_minds_think_alike)

Of course if you had read the rest you would had seen that it was a joke, however the important thing here is that I was a “bumpkin” that came from a third wold country, with English as his second language and still noticed how stupid deniers were dealing with items like the [Hockey stick](http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm), why it is that you are incapable of checking if your “clever” say so’s regarding AGW are indeed clever before uttering them?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/263 "2011-01-21T03:30:58Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> After the rains in Brazil and Australia I imagine. Yeah, yeah, “short term!” you’re gonna scream.

What exactly do you think lifted all that water into the sky above my head? Cold?

Dumbass.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/264 "2011-01-21T04:37:05Z")

</div>

> [@Princhester](#):
>
> What exactly do you think lifted all that water into the sky above my head? Cold?
> 
> Dumbass.

A warmer world will increase ocean evaporation, true, and overall a warmer world should be a wetter world. Where that water actually comes down isn’t so clear though, and to be fair, the steadily decreasing rainfall in Australia over most of the 20th century has been blamed on global warming.

The records of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology show that the current floods are not as bad as the 1974 flood and not even close to the flooding seen in the late 19th century. See: [National Warnings Summary](http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/brisbane_lower/brisbane_lower.shtml#PreviousFlooding) Attributing the current flooding to climate change seems very premature.

Meanwhile, some analysts are claiming that the flooding would have been minor if the Wivehoe Dam hadn’t been mismanaged:

> **[Large Balls](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/large-balls.html)**
>
> \[Image from The Australian, see the original here in PDF \] Wivenhoe Dam near Brisbane, Australia is at the center of controversy in its ...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/265 "2011-01-21T04:56:04Z")

</div>

> [@matt](#):
>
> A warmer world will increase ocean evaporation, true, and overall a warmer world should be a wetter world. Where that water actually comes down isn’t so clear though, and to be fair, the steadily decreasing rainfall in Australia over most of the 20th century has been blamed on global warming.

Right. Increased average humidity globally is not incompatible with regional patterns of increased drought.

Frinstance, [here’s an article](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080131-west-droughts.html) predicting increased drought in the western US due to global warming effects:

> [@](#):
>
> The U.S. West will see devastating droughts as global warming reduces the amount of mountain snow and causes the snow that does fall to melt earlier in the year, a new study says.
> 
> By storing moisture in the form of snow, mountains act as huge natural reservoirs, releasing water into rivers long into the summer dry season.
> 
> “We’re losing that reservoir,” said research leader Tim Barnett, an oceanographer and climate researcher at the University of California, San Diego.
> 
> “Spring runoff is getting earlier and earlier in the year, so you have to let water go over the dams into the ocean.”
> 
> Summers are also becoming hotter and longer. “That dries things out more and leads to fires,” Barnett added.

For what it’s worth, [NOAA has indeed noted](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/#regional-overview) that “Most of the last ten years have been characterized by persistent drought over the West, making it one of the most pronounced drought decades of the last 110 years.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 21, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/266 "2011-01-21T05:09:15Z")

</div>

Indeed, the “Attributing the current flooding to climate change seems very premature” bit was pointed out before, all the recent disasters are natural, the thing is that there is now more water vapor in the atmosphere that was not there before, hence the observation that one can not blame the Australian flooding on global warming, but one can not avoid that these phenomenons are stronger thanks to the excess of water vapor thanks to global warming.

> **[Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works](https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm)**
>
> \<p\>Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to...

> [@](#):
>
> Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as “fingerprinting”, was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world’s major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of ‘atmospheric moistening’ was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

What this tells me is that what we see in Australia could had been just a hard torrential month before AGW, instead of the disaster that turned up.

This seems to be a similar situation with the hurricanes and typhoons, the most up to date reports mention that it is likely that less hurricanes would happen in a warming world, but the ones that will appear would be stronger. Similarly, longer dry seasons does not mean that there would not be short but stronger wet seasons.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/267 "2011-01-21T05:37:31Z")

</div>

> [@neuroman](#):
>
> I am very interested in hearing some more information on models. Sam Stone and others have mentioned them.
> 
> I submit that the test of a good climate model is twofold:
> 
> (1) Does it demonstrate accuracy with respect to past data?  
> (2) Does it accurately project future data?

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> As both **GIGObuster** and **Sam Stone** have pointed out, current AGW climate models predict recent past temperatures quite well.

They do, but quite frankly, the models cheat a bit.

Consider NASA’a GISS E model. NASA publishes a nice graph of the historical forcing history used for that model here: [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/)  
Scroll to the bottom figure, where it shows all the seperate forcing histories over time and how they add up to give a nice wiggly net forcing. The net forcing is what reproduces the past temperatures.

The forcing history is dominated by the green line (greenhouse gases) that shows a steadily increasing effect, and the grey and cyan lines (aerosols) that show a spiky variation and a steadily increasing negative effect, respectively.

The problem is, the aerosol lines are guesses. The aerosol forcing is not very well known even now (NASA’s GLORY satellite mission due for launch in February will hopefully improve this situation.) The current IPCC estimate on the aerosol forcing is –0.4 ± 0.2 W/m[sup]-2[/sup], an uncertainty of +/- 50%. (From: [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-4-4-1.html#table-2-4](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-4-4-1.html#table-2-4)). The current forcing from CO[sub]2[/sub] is only 1.66 W/m[sup]-2[/sup], so the aerosol uncertainty gives a fair amount of wriggle room for the models. Essentially, you can make up your aerosol forcing history within these uncertainty limits so your model matches the historical temperature record, and nobody can say you’re wrong. (Source for CO[sub]2[/sub] forcing: [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf), page 141 fig. 2.1. Warning, large pdf.)

But of course, nobody does that, right? Well check out table 2 from the IPCC source above, showing a whole list of models with the assumed aerosol levels and forcings used in them (the RF column). They are nothing like the same as each other. This is why the models have such a spread in climate sensitivities ([http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html#table-8-2](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html#table-8-2)) and yet they give a good historical reproduction: they assume different aerosol forcings.

Now it’s not the modellers fault that we lack data on the sulphate forcing, but it is their fault that they don’t tell us to take the results with a pinch of salt until we get some good data.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/268 "2011-01-21T05:50:42Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> What this tells me is that what we see in Australia could had been just a hard torrential month before AGW, instead of the disaster that turned up.

And the previous several years of drought could have been a bumper growth season fed by moderate rains before AGW… or not. “Could” is meaningless. Hell, an increase of 0.41 kg per square metre is meaningless unless we know what the base level is and I’m having a hard time tracking that down. I’d hoped skeptical science would have had a graph, at least. Is it a 10% increase? A 1% increase? A 0.01% increase?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/269 "2011-01-21T06:16:24Z")

</div>

> [@neuroman](#):
>
> I am very interested in hearing some more information on models.

A couple of good sites: the always-readable John Niesen-Gammon: [http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3A54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3A87ed587f-c152-4d17-9b57-a5d21082dedc&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest](http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3a87ed587f-c152-4d17-9b57-a5d21082dedc&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

and the awesome but very information-dense Science of Doom: [Models, On – and Off – the Catwalk – Part One | The Science of Doom](http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/27/models-on-and-off-the-catwalk-part-one/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/270 "2011-01-21T06:39:45Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> All your points are uniformed drivel. See how it works?

[shrug] Just so long as it’s a [kewl uniform.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Die_Uniformen_der_Allgemeinen_SS_32-45.jpg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/271 "2011-01-21T07:00:21Z")

</div>

> [@matt](#):
>
> This is why the models have such a spread in climate sensitivities ([http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_...html#table-8-2](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...html#table-8-2)) and yet they give a good historical reproduction: they assume different aerosol forcings.

Do you have a cite for different aerosol forcings specifically being used as the key to improving model agreement with data? AFAICT, the Report suggests that the differences between the models’ climate sensitivity values are mostly due to differences in how they handle clouds. The differences among the models in general seem to be [pretty complex](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2.html#table-8-1). In other words, there appear to be lots of ways that different models are “tuned”.

> [@matt](#):
>
> Now it’s not the modellers fault that we lack data on the sulphate forcing, but it is their fault that they don’t tell us to take the results with a pinch of salt until we get some good data.

Seems to me they’re pretty up-front about the “tuning” issue right there in Chapter 8.1.3, [How Are Models Constructed?](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-1-3.html)

> [@](#):
>
> Computational constraints restrict the resolution that is possible in the discretized equations, and some representation of the large-scale impacts of unresolved processes is required (the parametrization problem). […]
> 
> Parametrizations are typically based in part on simplified physical models of the unresolved processes (e.g., entraining plume models in some convection schemes). The parametrizations also involve numerical parameters that must be specified as input. Some of these parameters can be measured, at least in principle, while others cannot. It is therefore common to adjust parameter values (possibly chosen from some prior distribution) in order to optimise model simulation of particular variables or to improve global heat balance. This process is often known as ‘tuning’.

They’re also not hiding the fact that [aerosol forcings are assigned low Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) ratings](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html), precisely because of the paucity of data on them.

So while I completely agree with you that we need to recognize the continuing uncertainties in the science that affect predictions of AGW effects, I’m not sure I buy your description of it as “cheating”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/272 "2011-01-21T12:55:15Z")

</div>

> [@matt](#):
>
> A warmer world will increase ocean evaporation, true, and overall a warmer world should be a wetter world. Where that water actually comes down isn’t so clear though, and to be fair, the steadily decreasing rainfall in Australia over most of the 20th century has been blamed on global warming.

Understand all that, but the point is that flooding is not some sort of indication of lack of an increase in energy in the system, as Dumbo seemed to imply. It may indicate nothing at all relevant to this debate, I accept. But it certainly doesn’t _contradict_ warming.

> [@](#):
>
> The records of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology show that the current floods are not as bad as the 1974 flood and not even close to the flooding seen in the late 19th century. See: [National Warnings Summary](http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/brisbane_lower/brisbane_lower.shtml#PreviousFlooding) Attributing the current flooding to climate change seems very premature.
> 
> Meanwhile, some analysts are claiming that the flooding would have been minor if the Wivehoe Dam hadn’t been mismanaged:  
> [Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Large Balls](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/large-balls.html)

This is really a topic for a whole other thread. Let me start by saying that I don’t think one-off events have much meaning in this debate. But just for the record, your reasoning above insofar as it seeks to imply that the recent flooding might not actually be indicative of unusually massive rainfall is notably erroneous.

As to your first para, yes the recent flooding was about the same or maybe a bit less than 1974 (it depended where you were) but that has absolutely stuff all relevance to a comparison of the quantity of rain that fell last week to the quantity of rain that fell in 1974 or in the various 19th century floods because back then there was no Wivenhoe Dam.

As to your second point, you completely and utterly miss the point insofar as it may be relevant to this debate (and again I’m not saying it is relevant, but for what it is worth). There is an allegation that more should have been released from the dam before the heavy rain began, so that there was more capacity to absorb inflows. As your link says, at the time of the maximum releases from the dam (which resulted in flooding) the dam levels were _rising_ which means that what was coming down from the catchment was even more than the controlled releases. That is to say, if the dam hadn’t been there, the flood would have been a fuckava lot worse.

In short, I am yet to see an analysis of what the flooding would have been if there had been no Wivenhoe, but it would have been far worse than 1974 and quite possibly equivalent to the really bad 19th C floods.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/273 "2011-01-21T15:53:29Z")

</div>

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Do you have a cite for different aerosol forcings specifically being used as the key to improving model agreement with data? AFAICT, the Report suggests that the differences between the models’ climate sensitivity values are mostly due to differences in how they handle clouds.

Well there’s this one: [http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-final-report-all.pdf](http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-final-report-all.pdf)

From page 4 section ES 3.1

“Despite a wide range of climate sensitivity (i.e. the amount of surface temperature increase due to a change in radiative forcing, such as an increase of CO2) exhibited by the models, they all yield a global average temperature change very similar to that observed over the past century. This agreement across models appears to be a consequence of the use of very different aerosol forcing values, which compensates for the range of climate sensitivity.”

For what it’s worth, I seem to recall an attribution to clouds somewhere as well.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> So while I completely agree with you that we need to recognize the continuing uncertainties in the science that affect predictions of AGW effects, I’m not sure I buy your description of it as “cheating”.

Cheating might be harsh wording, but did you check out the GISS E model forcing history graphs? Everyone has seen the way models hindcast the temperature record, matching the various ups-and-downs rather impressively. Hardly anyone is aware that the correlation is due to a variable aerosol forcing history in the model input that is decided by the modellers, and doesn’t reflect any particular skill of the model involved. While I’m happy to believe that there is some justification for the forcing history (historical volcanic eruptions etc.), the heights of the peaks are necessarily arbitrary.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/274 "2011-01-21T15:54:49Z")

</div>

## **GIGobuster:** Does that line work? The ad hominen? “It’s a well-known denier site”, will you accept the line “it’s a well-known warmist place”? You then decided to cite urban effect simply because you like it, not because it answers my cite. An effect that is measured in tenths of a degree has an uncertainty of 60 times that level? Does that give you confidence in predicitng 100 years? It is clear that despite the evidence science cannot cope with the complexities of climate or what humans will do in 100 years. Would you accept any other area (or human experience) of science with such levels of uncertainty?

**Kimtsu** : I know it’s all of them added one after the other and of course it is not a case based entirely on ignorance, but you’ve got to admit there’s that “we’re not really sure” component.  
As to doubling my idea is this and I apologise because I didn’t express myself clearly. (all the numbers will be absolutely invented) If the concentration of CO2 went from 700 to 800 and the temperature increased 15°, and increase from 800 to 900 will produce a 10° increase. CO2 is less eficient in increasing temperature.

* * *

Princhester: Apparently AGW is clever enough to bring more rain to rainy places and at the same time bring less to “droughty”. You wouldn’t be forgetting that that rainforests produce their own rain due to plant transpiration and that the effects of the same ammount of rain can be greatly affected by human activity, now would you?

* * *

MAtt: You’re right in the ammount of “coulds” in operation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/275 "2011-01-21T16:16:39Z")

</div>

> [@Princhester](#):
>
> Understand all that, but the point is that flooding is not some sort of indication of lack of an increase in energy in the system, as Dumbo seemed to imply. It may indicate nothing at all relevant to this debate, I accept. But it certainly doesn’t _contradict_ warming.

I missed that. Agreed, and agreed.

> [@Princhester](#):
>
> As to your first para, yes the recent flooding was about the same or maybe a bit less than 1974 (it depended where you were) but that has absolutely stuff all relevance to a comparison of the quantity of rain that fell last week to the quantity of rain that fell in 1974 or in the various 19th century floods because back then there was no Wivenhoe Dam.

Good point. I wonder if there is actual comparative rainfall data available? There should be for 1974, at least.

> [@Princhester](#):
>
> As your link says, at the time of the maximum releases from the dam (which resulted in flooding) the dam levels were _rising_ which means that what was coming down from the catchment was even more than the controlled releases. That is to say, if the dam hadn’t been there, the flood would have been a fuckava lot worse.
> 
> In short, I am yet to see an analysis of what the flooding would have been if there had been no Wivenhoe, but it would have been far worse than 1974 and quite possibly equivalent to the really bad 19th C floods.

Possibly, but that would imply that the rainfall seen was still not unprecedented, not that that proves anything much one way or the other.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 21, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/276 "2011-01-21T18:13:49Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> **GIGobuster:** Does that line work? The ad hominen? “It’s a well-known denier site”, will you accept the line “it’s a well-known warmist place”?

As you never get tired of showing others your ignorance, a warmist can be someone like a non expert, and one can point at Al Gore, what it is not a warmist are the scientists and experts that are the proponents of AGW, and the cites I use do point at the science articles, so even a denier like yourself can check (Yeah, right) the information coming from experts, then we have skeptics that do work in the filed like Pat Michaels, and then we have deniers that even deny that Pat Michaels has told them to “stop using the stupid argument that the earth is cooling”

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> You then decided to cite urban effect simply because you like it, not because it answers my cite.

What cite was that? Post the whole context where those images came from and stop playing games.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> An effect that is measured in tenths of a degree has an uncertainty of 60 times that level? Does that give you confidence in predicitng 100 years? It is clear that despite the evidence science cannot cope with the complexities of climate or what humans will do in 100 years.  
> Would you accept any other area (or human experience) of science with such levels of uncertainty?

Smoking as a cause of cancer had AFAIK similar levels of uncertainty when the clampdown on tobacco makers came.

> **[So, Smoking Causes Cancer: This Is News? (Published 1996)](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/27/weekinreview/so-smoking-causes-cancer-this-is-news.html)**
>
> Discovery that chemical in cigarette smoke causes genetic mutations in lung cells identical to those found in many lung cancer patients seems to be more important to ordinary people than to doctors and scientists, who already believe that smoking...

Virtually the same merchants of doubt that worked to seed doubts on the connection with smoking and cancer are working now to keep the doubts on AGW up so as to keep government and other institutions from doing something about the issue.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\
**Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/277 "2011-01-21T19:49:28Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> As you never get tired of showing others your ignorance, a warmist can be someone like a non expert, and one can point at Al Gore, what it is not a warmist are the scientists and experts that are the proponents of AGW, and the cites I use do point at the science articles, so even a denier like yourself can check (Yeah, right) the information coming from experts, then we have skeptics that do work in the filed like Pat Michaels, and then we have deniers that even deny that Pat Michaels has told them to “stop using the stupid argument that the earth is cooling”

So, the answer is yes or no on ad hominens?

> [@](#):
>
> What cite was that? Post the whole context where those images came from and stop playing games.

My cites:  
[Unadjusted](http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc00a7970c-pi)vs [Adjusted](http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc003a970c-pi) (I know, it’s a scary deniers site…but the data is right).

[Yours](http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm)  
And also, that map showing temperatures all over the world is false. It shows giagantic interpolations and assuptions. The real data with 250km squares around the observation is [like this](http://www.fisica.edu.uy/~barreiro/img/GHCN_GISS_250km_Trnd1212_1930_2007.gif). By the way, I live in the coast and 250km to the east you can drive up to 4800 m.a.s.l. so even those squares are a bit too much.

If you want to go urban-heat-wise. Here NCDC [raw](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/long_rural_urban_raw.png)and [adjusted](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/long_urban_rural_adjusted.png), sure, there’s no difference. I know it’s a denier place, but, could you focus on the data? Or that doesn’t work?

> [@](#):
>
> Smoking as a cause of cancer had AFAIK similar levels of uncertainty when the clampdown on tobacco makers came.
> 
> [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06EEDA1F30F934A15753C1A960958260](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06EEDA1F30F934A15753C1A960958260)
> 
> Virtually the same merchants of doubt that worked to seed doubts on the connection with smoking and cancer are working now to keep the doubts on AGW up so as to keep government and other institutions from doing something about the issue.

The article has no data at all. Tell your handlers to give you better links, dude.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 21, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/278 "2011-01-21T20:23:49Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> My cites:  
> [Unadjusted](http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc00a7970c-pi)vs [Adjusted](http://briefingroom.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875dc003a970c-pi) (I know, it’s a scary deniers site…but the data is right).

Nope, what is scary is your state of eternal confusion, for all we know the writer in the article showing the images is just complaining about the adjustment and **not bothering** to explain what was done, so post the article that explains why this is supposed to be devious, or just continue to post images with no context.

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> The article has no data at all. Tell your handlers to give you better links, dude.

The point was only to show how doubt was used even with a subject like smoking, so your sorry point was answered, science and society do react to such levels of uncertainty.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/279 "2011-01-22T00:35:11Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Nope, what is scary is your state of eternal confusion, for all we know the writer in the article showing the images is just complaining about the adjustment and **not bothering** to explain what was done, so post the article that explains why this is supposed to be devious, or just continue to post images with no context.

Poor you, you can’t even comment of data. With you, its always dodging and posturing.

> [@](#):
>
> The point was only to show how doubt was used even with a subject like smoking, so your sorry point was answered, science and society do react to such levels of uncertainty.

No, dude, no. You said “_Smoking as a cause of cancer had AFAIK similar levels of uncertainty when the clampdown on tobacco makers came._”. I’m sorry that I thought that by “_similar levels of uncertainty_” you were actually going to put some numbers, especially since I had just commented on error bars and statistical uncertainty.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/280 "2011-01-22T00:41:29Z")

</div>

> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Poor you, you can’t even comment of data. With you, its always dodging and posturing.
> 
> No, dude, no. You said “_Smoking as a cause of cancer had AFAIK similar levels of uncertainty when the clampdown on tobacco makers came._”. I’m sorry that I thought that by “_similar levels of uncertainty_” you were actually going to put some numbers, especially since I had just commented on error bars and statistical uncertainty.

So you don’t even know that you aren’t educated enough to actually have a worthy opinion? You really don’t?

Climate scientists, that is to say the people who actually understand the issues, are largely united on this. There is a scientific consensus.

What does it matter when some silly, ignorant bitch like you thinks he’s found a smoking gun? You don’t know what you’re talking about, so why do you think that you understand what climate scientists can’t see?

But keep on, keepin’ on. You’re just looking more and more the fool.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=13)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=15)