# Mods, you are playing their ignorant game if "climate change deniers" is offlimits. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 9, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931 "2012-08-09T03:49:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 7
**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:** [August 16, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/121 "2012-08-16T01:08:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The specified feedback of a doubling of CO2 concentration is estimated (in pro-AGW sources) at about 3ºC. Tracking back that high sensitivity backwards in the instrumental record, doesn’t fit observed temperastures. Also, high sensitivities would point to an inherently unstable system and climate isnt. > The 3ºC per doubling would get us fro the 1850 to now with a 1.5º increase and not the 0.8º observed. Aersols are brought to save the day, but their short lves an poor mixing means that, to average out, they would need to provide astonishing cooling in the areas where they are very high (we’re talking 5º). And sure enough, what this demonstrates is that there are good reasons why a source like Skeptical Science is ignored, this item has already been shot down many times before: > **[Has Earth warmed as much as expected?](https://skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm)** > > The argument that > [@](#): > > What Does This Tell Us About Climate Sensitivity? > > So far, global surface air temperatures have increased approximately 0.8°C in response to these radiative forcings. Since we’re 0% to 66% of the way to the radiative forcing associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (most likely value of 34%), the amount we should expect the planet to warm if CO2 doubles (also known as “climate sensitivity”) has a most likely value of 2.4°C, with a minimum of 1.2°C (because of the large aerosol cooling effect uncertainty and the fact that we may only be 0% of the way to the doubled CO2 forcing, we can’t place an upper limit on the climate sensivity parameter with this calculation). Using a much wider range of evidence, the IPCC puts the likely climate sensitivity range to a doubling of CO2 at 2 to 4.5°C with a most likely value of 3°C. Our calculation is consistent with IPCC the most likely value. > How Much Warming Should We Have Seen? > > We can also flip the calculation backwards, assuming the IPCC most likely climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and using the numbers above. In this case, we should have seen from 0% to 66% of 3°C, or about 0 to 2.0°C. Clearly the amount of warming we have seen so far is well within this range. Additionally, the most likely amount of warming is 34% of 3°C, which is 1.0°C. In other words, we have seen very close to the amount of warming that we “should have” seen, according to the IPCC. > > Warming is Consistent with What We Expect > > In short, contrary to Lindzen’s claims, the amount of surface warming thus far (0.8°C) is consistent with what we “should have seen” based on the IPCC numbers. Moreover, this calculation puts the most likely climate sensitivity parameter value within the IPCC’s stated range, whereas the much lower value claimed in Lindzen and Choi (2009) (less than 1°C for CO2 doubling) is inconsistent even with our calculated climate sensitivity lower bound (1.2°C). For additional discussion of the errors with Lindzen and Choi (2009), see here. > > When we actually account for thermal inertia and negative forcings, we find that the amount of warming we have seen is consistent with what the IPCC would expect, but inconsistent with Lindzen and Choi 2009. Thus the correct conclusion is that if Lindzen is correct about low climate sensitivity, we should already have seen much less warming than we have seen thus far. So once again, even the sources of that myth can be identified and the rebuttals that were already made in scientific journals are available. The main point here is that in this subject when all that evidence is available, one should be skeptical of the skeptics. ---
**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:** [August 16, 2012, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/122 "2012-08-16T01:11:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > An sure enough, what this demonstrates is that there are good reasons why a source like Skeptical science is ignored, this item has already been shot down many times before: > > [Has Earth warmed as much as expected?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm) > > So once again, even the sources of that myth can be identified and the rebuttals that were already made. 0 to 66%???!! You’re kidding, aren’t you. Does your source know absortion in not a linear progression? ---
**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:** [August 16, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/123 "2012-08-16T01:14:10Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 0 to 66%???!! You’re kidding, aren’t you. > Does your source know absortion in not a linear progression? > **[Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements](https://skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm)** > > \Lindzen's analysis has several flaws, such as only looking at data in the tropics. A number of independent studies using near-global satellite data find positive feedback and high climate sensitivity.\ > [@](#): > > Wholly Debunked > > A full understanding of climate requires we take into account the full body of evidence. In the case of climate sensitivity and satellite data, it requires a global dataset, not just the tropics. Stepping back to take a broader view, a single paper must also be seen in the context of the full body of peer-reviewed research. **A multitude of papers looking at different periods in Earth’s history independently and empirically converge on a consistent answer - climate sensitivity is around 3°C implying net positive feedback.** ---
**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:** [August 16, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/124 "2012-08-16T01:15:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Working out climate sensitivity from satellite measurements](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm) As usual, non-responsive. It must be scary to face the truth. ---
**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:** [August 16, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/125 "2012-08-16T01:26:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > As usual, non-responsive. It must be scary to face the truth. Nope, serious rebuttals don’t work that way, already on several occasions it is clear that you have to refute several surveys or papers that support what that experts are saying, what happens next is just like a telephone hung up on a dial tone repeating “tut tut tut”. What is observed is clear, no good sources can be found by you to support what you claim. ---
**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:** [August 16, 2012, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/126 "2012-08-16T01:30:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That’s why I go straight to the source (the actual science), not to the pedantic rehashers nor those with no personal view.. What it is clear is that that is not the case, the links go to the published science, it is only wishful thinking that tells you that what the site reports is at odds with the published science. > **[How sensitive is our climate?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm)** > > \Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around... ---
**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:** [August 16, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/127 "2012-08-16T17:21:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What it is clear is that that is not the case, the links go to the published science, it is only wishful thinking that tells you that what the site reports is at odds with the published science. > > [How sensitive is our climate?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm) Since I never said “it’s at odds”, I only said “pedantic”, you are saying something untrue. I said I didn’t need that website’s explanations of the published science. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/128 "2012-08-18T06:55:43Z")
> [@](#): > > **Aji de Gallina** : In English the term isn’t neutral. > [@](#): > > **Aji de Gallina** : 1) Who says I do? and if I do, have you provided something of real value except the pedantically written articles of your favourtie webstie or long videos I’ve told you I won’t watch? ] One link that **Gigobuster** provided is the Oxford Dictionary. That is about as good as it gets for the English language. In its definition, that dictionary does not suggest at all that the term “denier” is a perjorative. If it is loaded or slanted, it would usually carry a designation saying so. Can you provide a link to a dictionary of the English language that suggests that the term “denier” is not neutral? You may be offended by the use of the term “denier.” Have you studied English semantics or linguistics? “The message sent is not always the message received.” Just because you feel offended, that doesn’t mean that the word itself is loaded. > [@](#): > > **Aji de Gallino** : I don’t believe temperatures are going to rise to any worrysome levels because feedbacks as stated do not match mathematical realities. Speaking anecdotally, I have to disagree. The temperatures this past July broke all heat records for the month here and in many places across the US. There was never a hotter July. Further, the hottest day ever on record here was 111 degrees. That was from July also. Here in the South the humidity coupled with that temperature was _very_ “worrysome.” People were told to stay in their houses if they could at all because the temperature was dangerous. And people do die from heat-related problems. Even when I was teaching, the schools closed because of high temperatures. Also, people who are my age (late sixties) can remember when we used to have very snowy winters. We had only a few snowflakes this past winter. I’ve watched that change for the last fifty years. It will probably snow again, but not as often as it used to. And the math does bare me out. People can claim just about anything in the world of science. Look for articles in well-known science journals. Peer review is extremely important and these articles published in science journals must provide _evidence_. Be a little wary of anthing that claims “proof” in science. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/129 "2012-08-18T07:15:48Z")
“Confused” is not derogatory, **Aji**. Where do you find a cite for that? Everyone has been confused at one time or another. That’s human. It is also human to be ignorant. Everyone is ignorant about certain things. And being “skeptical” is no sin. Some of us are _skeptical_ of your main source. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/130 "2012-08-18T15:28:23Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > ]Speaking anecdotally, I have to disagree. The temperatures this past July broke all heat records for the month here and in many places across the US. And you think that’s because of global warming? ---
**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:** [August 18, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/131 "2012-08-18T16:44:12Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > And you think that’s because of global warming? Indeed, one has to be careful on not blaming the recent temperatures to global warming, they still have a natural reason for being, \*\*but global warming makes heat waves worse, more likely, and causes them to last longer. \*\* > **[News | NCAR & UCAR News](https://news.ucar.edu/)** > [@](#): > > explaining why some people call carbon dioxide (and the other greenhouse gases) the steroids of the climate system. Statistics and extreme behavior are involved, whether we’re talking about baseball or Earth’s atmosphere. NCAR scientist Gerald “Jerry” Meehl explains why. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/132 "2012-08-18T19:40:32Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > And you think that’s because of global warming? It’s too bad [no one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=651412)who works in the field [ever asks](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527851)those kinds of questions. About the inherent negativity, I don’t think it resides in the dictionary definition per se but in its clear, obvious, and intentional implications. Most people on the board do not want to be lumped in with creationists, truthers and birthers. Being labeled as such, it says several things to the rest of the board. It says to other Board members that the denier is incapable or unwilling to understand basic science. No one who professes to be a creationist is taken seriously in evolutionary debates (except by other creationists) and when people try and have any sort of conversation about evolution, they tend to come in and ruin it (by hijacking the real conversation into the inannities of creationism and other junk science). So too with a climate change denier. Calling some other site or advocate or even a poster a “denier” is to refer to them as someone who, willfully or not, is ignorant of basic science. It does not mean that they’re not addressed (GIGO has infinite patience in that regard), just as creationists are provided with links that retire (or should retire) their hackneyed claims. It does carry negative implications, but as GIGO said in the OP, because it’s an _accurate_ descriptor, making any sort of generalized rule would cede to the ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/133 "2012-08-18T20:20:54Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > It’s too bad [no one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=651412)who works in the field [ever asks](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=527851)those kinds of questions. I’m confused by your comment. My question to the other poster was because he/she seemed to think that the current heat wave in the US could be directly attributed to AGW. Given the immense complexities of our system, it seems ridiculous for someone to do that for a short term local event with any kind of confidence. What do your links and statement about working in the field have to do with that person’s post? ---
**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:** [August 18, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/134 "2012-08-18T22:42:36Z")
I don’t care about being called a denier by anonymous people on a message board. I take back any and all comments that might even tangently would appear that I do care. I am done with this thread. Tip your waiter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931.md?page=6)