# Suprise energy transfer from Sun- Global Warming implications?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suprise-energy-transfer-from-sun-global-warming-implications/509927
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 13, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suprise-energy-transfer-from-sun-global-warming-implications/509927 "2009-09-13T17:19:23Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suprise-energy-transfer-from-sun-global-warming-implications/509927/21 "2009-09-26T18:52:37Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> It’s the only explanation. :rolleyes:
Is this a Whoosh or a Sting?
---
### Author:  [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suprise-energy-transfer-from-sun-global-warming-implications/509927/22 "2009-09-28T04:48:07Z")
> [@jshore](#):
>
> Hi, intention. Good to hear from you as always.
And from you as well, my friend.
> [@](#):
>
> [QUOTE=intention]
>
> But if you do make the list, please distinguish between those organizations that have actually asked their members about the question, and those who have two or three leaders at the top who agree with the consensus and put out a statement without checking with their members. In my experience, the latter is quite common, and the former is quite rare.
That is why organizations elect board members and such. So, that they don’t have to have vote directly on every issue. Sure, one could imagine the possibility that a few such organizations might get hijacked…But, that happening to nearly every major scientific organization on the planet? Sounds pretty unlikely to me!
[/QUOTE]
It is not a question of hijacking. If scientific organizations had voted on tectonic drift in 1950 or so, they would have been just as unanimous … and just as wrong.
> [@](#):
>
> [QUOTE=intention]
> The American Chemical Society did that, and now a number of the members are up in arms about it …
Believe me, if this was anything other than a small but vocal minority, you would be hearing a lot more about it…You’d have members of scientific societies throwing their leadership out in the next elections! (And, that site that you linked to, by the way, is run by Marc Morano, a former aide to Sen. James Inhofe, whose motis operandi is to manufacture the appearance of a grand scientific rebellion against the science on climate change.)
[/QUOTE]
Right, attack the messenger, that’s worked so well to date. So if Marc Morano reports it, it must be untrue. Is that truly the position that you, as a scientist, want to take? You comfortable with that?
Perhaps, if that is the case, you could point me to a single statement on the page that you know to be untrue.
[QUOTE=jshore]
[QUOTE=intention]
The globe has not warmed in the last decade, and no one knows why. Where’s the consensus, where’s the “science is sound” in that?
[/QUOTE]
One good possibility why there hasn’t been a warming trend over some carefully-chosen time periods is exactly for the reason that climate models forced with greenhouse gases show similar length periods with the same sort of thing…On short time scales, internal variability is important (and, in this case, it may or may not have had a little help from the solar cycle).
[/QUOTE]
Y’know, people keep saying that models show the same, but I haven’t found anyone yet that can back it up. Perhaps you are the one who can. Out of all of the climate models out there, which one shows a decade with no warming during the period 2000-2100? I’ve looked, and I haven’t found one yet, but it could be out there. Please let us know your findings. I would imagine that it is a rare event in climate models. But possible, no doubt. I just haven’t found it, or determined its rarity.
However, it does lead to another question. If the reason for a non-warming decade is “natural variability”, then how can you claim that the reason for a warming decade is not “natural variability”? Because that is the claim that is often made about the '90s, that the warming was not due to natural causes …
Many thanks as always.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suprise-energy-transfer-from-sun-global-warming-implications/509927/23 "2009-09-28T16:00:11Z")
> [@intention](#):
>
> It is not a question of hijacking. If scientific organizations had voted on tectonic drift in 1950 or so, they would have been just as unanimous … and just as wrong.
Previously, you seemed to be arguing that the views of the scientific organizations do not accurately reflect the views of most of their members. Now, I infer that you are arguing that maybe they do but that view might still be wrong (unless you are saying that the scientific organizations were out-of-step with their members in regard to tectonic drift). Let’s assume this account of history is correct (and I have read that the dismissal of Wegener by many at the time is actually more complicated than is often told), I still don’t see what it is supposed to tell us. Are we supposed to ignore the best scientific understanding at the time because it later may turn out to be wrong? Wouldn’t that be a recipe for never using science to make any policy decisions?
> [@](#):
>
> Right, attack the messenger, that’s worked so well to date. So if Marc Morano reports it, it must be untrue. Is that truly the position that you, as a scientist, want to take? You comfortable with that?
No…I am not saying that it must be untrue. However, what I am saying is that it is Marc Morano’s job to try to make as big a deal as possible about any controversy of this sort in the scientific community. I think you ought to admit that he is far from an objective source of information.
And, as for attacking the messenger, you have previously done the same thing in regards to the entire IPCC and various individual scientists. The difference between us that I see is you attack messengers who most of the scientific community believe are reasonably good and objective sources of information and I attack messengers like Morano who are not really taken seriously by the vast majority of the scientific community.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps, if that is the case, you could point me to a single statement on the page that you know to be untrue.
Well, if we had an objective account of what happened, perhaps I could. But, since the only account that you have provided is from someone who few people would consider objective, I have no idea. And, my guess is that the problem is not so much one of outright lies as it is about creating mountains out of molehills.
> [@](#):
>
> Y’know, people keep saying that models show the same, but I haven’t found anyone yet that can back it up. Perhaps you are the one who can. Out of all of the climate models out there, which one shows a decade with no warming during the period 2000-2100? I’ve looked, and I haven’t found one yet, but it could be out there. Please let us know your findings. I would imagine that it is a rare event in climate models. But possible, no doubt. I just haven’t found it, or determined its rarity.
Actually, [here](http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf) is a paper about the statistics of such trends showing an individual model run that shows a 15-year period with a small negative trend. See also [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/).
> [@](#):
>
> However, it does lead to another question. If the reason for a non-warming decade is “natural variability”, then how can you claim that the reason for a warming decade is not “natural variability”? Because that is the claim that is often made about the '90s, that the warming was not due to natural causes …
Well, I wouldn’t think that the 90s in isolation would be a long enough period to say this conclusively. However, we now have about a 35 year period from the mid-1970s to the present with a warming trend that is highly statistically significant.
> [@](#):
>
> Many thanks as always.
And, to you to.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suprise-energy-transfer-from-sun-global-warming-implications/509927.md?page=1)