• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Scientist Predicts Mini Ice Age in next few decades...

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,062
6,043
136
Oops that does demolish my point actually. I thought he was lowering the temperatures in the past, not raising them. You definitely win that one. Why in the hell would he do that?

What do you think about this one? Some climate warmists are acknowledging the slowdown after spending the last decade demonizing anybody who suggested that it was happening. I find it amusing that warmists are running the gamut on this one..... from the warming never happened.... to "massaging" the data.... to China... etc.... They can't seem to agree if the slowdown happened and if it happened what caused it. This is just in the "global warming apocalypse" portion of climate scientists. "Settled" science indeed.



http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/warming-slowdown-was-real-scientists-say-160225.htm

Paratus,

What would convince you that global warming was not a threat to humanity?

If I saw a significant percent (say 20%) of the dire predictions from warmists come true, I would change my position. What dire predictions made by warmists are you aware of that actually came true? I am aware of NONE. Do all the failed predictions bother you?
Why would he adjust the temperatures? Maybe he just wants the most accurate data possible and isn't part of some liberal conspiracy to jack up your energy prices. Haha, no that's not it. He was probably drunk or something.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
LOL overvolt thinks temperature gradients align with magnetic field lines.

See why it is absolutely pointless to debate these topics on forums?
I like to mess with you guys. Between El Nino, changes in the ICTZ, and the Polar Vortex is how you get that image. Not MMGW. Not Thermo 101. I knew the entire time you know.





I don't know why you guys were all joining some kind of bandwagon because you weren't reading what I said, but I just went with it. Stuff like the "uh-huh" were 100% sarcastic because I knew they weren't reading what I said or were thinking. Every one of you jumped the shark. There is no reason to attribute the arctic warming to MMGW in a generic sense since that is clearly just what an el nino looks like in January when it hits the polar vortex.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/15/temperatures-polar-vortex-el-nino-climate-winter-weather

In February, high pressure pushed the vortex towards the equator.
https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=1C524B98-1

Climate scientists are studying whether climate change, as a result of anthropogenic effects such as the enhanced greenhouse effect, may be affecting the observed increase in strength and frequency of El Niño events since the late 1970s. Currently, a direct link between El Niño and climate change has not been found. The strengthening subtropical jet stream reduces the strength and frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean. In response to greenhouse gas increases, some computer model simulations show an increase in El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability while others exhibit no significant increase. Thus, as yet there is no consistent picture of how ENSO variability might be expected to change in response to enhanced greenhouse effect. Further research is needed before scientists can provide confident answers.


Polar Vortex picking up El nino warm air. Not MMGW. Stop owning yourselves.

"NASA scientists absolutely floored by whats happening in the arctic right now" = Lolz.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
I like to mess with you guys. Between El Nino, changes in the ICTZ, and the Polar Vortex is how you get that image. Not MMGW. Not Thermo 101. I knew the entire time you know.





I don't know why you guys were all joining some kind of bandwagon because you weren't reading what I said, but I just went with it. Stuff like the "uh-huh" were 100% sarcastic because I knew they weren't reading what I said or were thinking. Every one of you jumped the shark. There is no reason to attribute the arctic warming to MMGW in a generic sense since that is clearly just what an el nino looks like in January when it hits the polar vortex.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/15/temperatures-polar-vortex-el-nino-climate-winter-weather



https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=1C524B98-1





Polar Vortex picking up El nino warm air. Not MMGW. Stop owning yourselves.

"NASA scientists absolutely floored by whats happening in the arctic right now" = Lolz.
Uh-huh


Oh but look there is a link to MMGW

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/02/05/absurdly-high-arctic-temperatures-drive-sea-ice-to-record-low/#.Vs9lEkVOKnN

......While the Arctic Oscillation clearly played an important role in January’s record-high warmth and record-low sea ice extent, it also had co-conspirator: global warming — as this graphic illustrates:

Long-term warming in the Arctic is associated with long-term declines in sea ice.
The blue line plots annual temperature anomalies (in °C) recorded at Arctic land stations (north of 60°N). The red line shows the same for the globe as a whole. (Note: There were few stations in the Arctic, particularly in northern Canada, before 1940. Source: Arctic Report Card for 2015. The data are from the CRUTEM4 dataset.)
Take a close look at that blue line. It shows how temperatures recorded at land stations in the Arctic have varied from the 1981-2010 mean. The warming trend since the 1970s is obvious — especially compared to the warming of the globe as a whole, shown by the red line. In fact, the Arctic has been warming at twice the rate as lower latitudes since the early 2000’s.

So while it is true that natural variations from winter to winter, driven by factors like the Arctic Oscillation, play a role in what happens up there, those are little squiggles on top of the longer term warming trend — which is driven by, well, us.
Just some advice based on your posting history Ov, you may not want to "play dumb". ;)
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
If there is a single thing that doesn't have "a link to MMGW", it certainly happens indoors.
Climate is based on long term weather.
Weather is driven by heat in the ocean and the atmosphere.
CO2 increases the amount of heat in both.

What do you want me to say Werepossum?
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
Climate is based on long term weather.
Weather is driven by heat in the ocean and the atmosphere.
CO2 increases the amount of heat in both.

What do you want me to say Werepossum?
How much on a global scale and how do you prove it? Feedback mecahnisms seem very poorly understood. Positive feedback is ASSUMED yet unproven. Could just as easily be negative feedbacks.

The temperature has not been correlated very well at all to CO2 levels in the last 100 years. CO2 levels have been rising in a clean straight line while the temperature has times of cooling and stagnation, punctuated with surges. Comparing a plot of temperature and CO2 levels illustrates that there are plenty of other mechanisms in place.
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,048
4,106
136
How much on a global scale and how do you prove it? Feedback mecahnisms seem very poorly understood. Positive feedback is ASSUMED yet unproven. Could just as easily be negative feedbacks.

The temperature has not been correlated very well at all to CO2 levels in the last 100 years. CO2 levels have been rising in a clean straight line while the temperature has times of cooling and stagnation, punctuated with surges. Comparing a plot of temperature and CO2 levels illustrates that there are plenty of other mechanisms in place.
CO2 isn't the most effective and efficient greenhouse gas, and typically in the past, as the temperature went up, CO2 went up.

The difference is that we are burning fuels that release lots of CO2, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, regardless of it not being as powerful as methane or even water vapor. And whatever bit of warming the CO2 we add to the atmosphere performs, it has all sorts of effects, such as warming permafrost, which then releases lots of methane currently trapped in the soil. And the methane causes warming, which increases the water vapor in the air, which increases warming, increasing CO2, and or methane, which increases CO2 or water vapor...or other greenhouse gasses, I just use those two as examples.

So, CO2 doesn't have to be the strongest greenhouse gas, and doesn't have to directly drive all warming, as much as the CO2 we add to the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect, which then causes further warming, in a nice, positive feedback cycle, with other gases causing as much or more warming, which can then increase other gases, and CO2 itself...and round and round we go.

You can keep spitting into the wind if you'd like, but humans are affecting the climate. At best, we're preventing some future ice age that would destroy civilization. If you want to go with that argument, fair enough. Perhaps "plants grow better" with a slightly higher CO2 concentration. But as of right now, increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere without the oceans being able to absorb it all, will lead to more warming. And if the oceans warm considerably enough, you could reasonably expect the CO2 previously absorbed by the ocean to be released too.

And I'm not worried about plants being able to breathe in the new environment, or being uncomfortable about the extra heat. I do worry, though, about the problems it creates around the planet as currently habitats are changed, not necessarily for the better. Adding in extra heat and water isn't going to affect every habitat for the better, and can disrupt the natural flora and fauna that live there. Which affects the humans who live there.

If there is some sort of negative feedback mechanism like the ocean, increasing the amount of CO2 absorption, good, but the positive feedback in re: warming is pretty solid. Increased temperatures mean increased water vapor and methane, which are both substantially more effective greenhouse gasses than CO2, meaning that CO2 doesn't have to directly drive every temperature increase, as it's still effective nudging it along.

And we can't rely on the oceans being able to continue absorbing all of the CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere. It can't be negotiated with, and it just doesn't give a shit. That is why people are concerned.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
How much on a global scale and how do you prove it? Feedback mecahnisms seem very poorly understood. Positive feedback is ASSUMED yet unproven. Could just as easily be negative feedbacks.

The temperature has not been correlated very well at all to CO2 levels in the last 100 years. CO2 levels have been rising in a clean straight line while the temperature has times of cooling and stagnation, punctuated with surges. Comparing a plot of temperature and CO2 levels illustrates that there are plenty of other mechanisms in place.
Nick did a good job explaining. But if you want some more, this page explains several of the feedback mechanisms and how they work.

ACS Climate Change Toolbox: Forcings and Feedbacks
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
Paratus,

What would convince you that global warming was not a threat to humanity?

If I saw a significant percent (say 20%) of the dire predictions from warmists come true, I would change my position. What dire predictions made by warmists are you aware of that actually came true? I am aware of NONE. Do all the failed predictions bother you?
I've looked at the data and the predictions and my education and experience all say it's real and it's going to be a problem. So what do I need to convince me it's not going to be a threat?

I need every government taking it seriously with plans put in place to lower peak warming.

I'd also accept 97+% of climate scientists who practice climate science passing peer reviewed articles that explain why it's not a problem.

The dire predictions haven't come true because the dire predictions are going to happen in the future.....

If you care to provide an example of a failed prediction I'll let you know if it bothers me.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
The dire predictions haven't come true because the dire predictions are going to happen in the future.....
Not true. There have been many predictions that have failed. There are predictions for this decade and next decade. Predictions are failing on a regular basis. The "predictions" may not be in peer reviewed journals but they are used to set American climate policy.

Here is a list of over 100 failed climate warmist predictions of the past.

June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”
Paratus, predictions matter, they really do. Warmists have used predictions in the past to effect decisions made by our politicians. Those decisions have effects on us. Why is it that you will not engage or consider those failed predictions? Why is it that you will not post successful predictions? I have scoured the web for successful predictions and could find none. Conversely fear-mongering end of the world failed predictions made by the most respected warmist "scientists" are as plentiful as the sands on the beach (well almost). At some point Paratus, you must acknowledge and explain the failed catastrophic predictions made by climate scientists in the past OR cease and desist in using their new catastrophic predictions as a bludgeon to justify immediate tampering with the energy costs for America's poorest and most vulnerable. Good science CATEGORICALLY requires successful predictions

https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/global-warming-failed-predictions/

http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
Not true. There have been many predictions that have failed. There are predictions for this decade and next decade. Predictions are failing on a regular basis. The "predictions" may not be in peer reviewed journals but they are used to set American climate policy.

Here is a list of over 100 failed climate warmist predictions of the past.



Paratus, predictions matter, they really do. Warmists have used predictions in the past to effect decisions made by our politicians. Those decisions have effects on us. Why is it that you will not engage or consider those failed predictions? Why is it that you will not post successful predictions? I have scoured the web for successful predictions and could find none. Conversely fear-mongering end of the world failed predictions made by the most respected warmist "scientists" are as plentiful as the sands on the beach (well almost). At some point Paratus, you must acknowledge and explain the failed catastrophic predictions made by climate scientists in the past OR cease and desist in using their new catastrophic predictions as a bludgeon to justify immediate tampering with the energy costs for America's poorest and most vulnerable. Good science CATEGORICALLY requires successful predictions

https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/global-warming-failed-predictions/

http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
The basic predictions of MMGW are:
  • Increasing global Surface Temperatures
  • Increasing Sea Level
  • Decreasing Ice

Here's a graph of the range of temperature changes predicted by the first (1990), second (1995), and third (2001) IPCC reports as of 2012.



All three models of surface warming easily mach up with observe surface warming.

Here are the IPCC sea level rise projections vs observed rise.


Sea level rise is right on the upper edge of predicted rise.

Now here's one indication where the IPCC was off: Sea Ice Loss


Now let's look at how well the denier hypothesises
  • It's not happening - False (temperatures up, sea level up, ice down)
  • It's happening but it's only natural - False (natural forcings are neutral or cooling)
  • It's happening but there's nothing we can do about it - False (Reduce CO2)
  • It doesn't matter what we do because China and India will never agree to cut emissions - False (Paris Climate Talks)
  • Global Warming will be good for us - False (a 10C rise like you want would destroy about billion homes due to sea level rise)

Look you can cherry pick 30+ year old comments from scientists or what some politician exaggerated in a paper but the actual peer reviewed science is settled. The biggest remaining unknowns to reduce are the timings and the magnitude of the effects.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,910
31
91
Here are the IPCC sea level rise projections vs observed rise.


Sea level rise is right on the upper edge of predicted rise.
That error is so large that any idea of 'prediction' is pretty much gone. The fact that their margin of error was so large speaks to the IPCC's lack of confidence in their own predictions.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,169
18,962
136
That error is so large that any idea of 'prediction' is pretty much gone. The fact that their margin of error was so large speaks to the IPCC's lack of confidence in their own predictions.
What is your basis for that claim? It sounds like you just said something that you feel should be true.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,827
2,928
126
If the IPCC can't predict next weeks Lotto numbers, what good is it?

Seems to be what some want from it. They made predictions as to what was going to happen(continued Warming) and it's happening. Predicting the exact consequences of that is a bit more tricky, but there's a general understanding as to what those entail.

Meanwhile we still have those who will just fling shit at the wall hoping to dissuade any action on the issue.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
That error is so large that any idea of 'prediction' is pretty much gone. The fact that their margin of error was so large speaks to the IPCC's lack of confidence in their own predictions.
Lol

Wah! The predictions don't match!

(Show that they do)

Wah! It's not accurate enough!

However I'll note that all observed data shows increasing temperatures which directly contradicts deniers.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,910
31
91
What is your basis for that claim? It sounds like you just said something that you feel should be true.
Lol

Wah! The predictions don't match!

(Show that they do)

Wah! It's not accurate enough!

However I'll note that all observed data shows increasing temperatures which directly contradicts deniers.
Really? Look at the prediction for the sea level at 2010 vs 1990.

1.2 - 6.4 cm rise

Which covers such as huge range of values that it is very easy to be right by coincidence simply because the guess range was so large. Basically the range included all possible outcomes between a mild rise (which would be expected - a drop or even standstill in sea levels would be unexpected) and an extremely large rise (similarly unexpected). A guess would have functioned as well - you would think with all the models and such an actual improvement over a guess would be possible.

For instance I will predict that the price of oil in 10 years will be between $40 - 150. I will most likely be correct. Not because I'm actually making a good prediction but because I've simply covered the range of likely values.

I'm simply stating that climate predictions tend to be poor, terrifically poor in comparison to the standards in science. I'm not commenting on decreasing temperatures/sea levels.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,499
3,004
126
The range of estimations is due to uncertainty.

Yet no matter where it falls into that range, the earth is warming.
If there's a question of how much warming, we'd have to discredit and _DESTROY_ GISS (and its subordinates) or the Surface record will stand as truth... and their version of the truth is rapid warming.

If we cannot discredit it, then we have no standing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,169
18,962
136
Really? Look at the prediction for the sea level at 2010 vs 1990.

1.2 - 6.4 cm rise

Which covers such as huge range of values that it is very easy to be right by coincidence simply because the guess range was so large. Basically the range included all possible outcomes between a mild rise (which would be expected - a drop or even standstill in sea levels would be unexpected) and an extremely large rise (similarly unexpected). A guess would have functioned as well - you would think with all the models and such an actual improvement over a guess would be possible.

For instance I will predict that the price of oil in 10 years will be between $40 - 150. I will most likely be correct. Not because I'm actually making a good prediction but because I've simply covered the range of likely values.

I'm simply stating that climate predictions tend to be poor, terrifically poor in comparison to the standards in science. I'm not commenting on decreasing temperatures/sea levels.
What makes you think that the range of oil prices you provided would be comparable to global temperatures?

I asked you a simple question: you claimed the margin of error was so large as to make all predictions useless. What is this based on? My guess is it's based on absolutely nothing.
 

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,910
31
91
What makes you think that the range of oil prices you provided would be comparable to global temperatures?

I asked you a simple question: you claimed the margin of error was so large as to make all predictions useless. What is this based on? My guess is it's based on absolutely nothing.
Oil price is simply an example. An extremely lax prediction simply starts losing its value in being a prediction.

No, I'm saying that the margin of error in the calculations is so large as to make the calculations essentially equivalent to nothing more than an educated guess. And that saying, "look models math observations" kinda falls flat when your error is so large such there is a good statistical chance that you would have agreement by chance.

Lets get my point straight. I'm not disagreeing with global warming or saying that we cannot determine what is going on (data and observations). I'm saying that the models suck.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
Really? Look at the prediction for the sea level at 2010 vs 1990.

1.2 - 6.4 cm rise

Which covers such as huge range of values that it is very easy to be right by coincidence simply because the guess range was so large. Basically the range included all possible outcomes between a mild rise (which would be expected - a drop or even standstill in sea levels would be unexpected) and an extremely large rise (similarly unexpected). A guess would have functioned as well - you would think with all the models and such an actual improvement over a guess would be possible.

For instance I will predict that the price of oil in 10 years will be between $40 - 150. I will most likely be correct. Not because I'm actually making a good prediction but because I've simply covered the range of likely values.

I'm simply stating that climate predictions tend to be poor, terrifically poor in comparison to the standards in science. I'm not commenting on decreasing temperatures/sea levels.
Great, there's a large range of uncertainty. No one is denying that. The IPCC analysis specifically states the uncertainty.

Have you ever dealt with a risk analysis? It's a tool for assessing based on the likelihood and impact of an identified risk.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management

Each category is given a rating 1-5 from unlikely to likely, negligible to severe. At work we use it to evaluate risks against crew safety (fatality), mission success (loss of vehicle), budget and schedule.



Risks that end up being in the red require actions to address and possibly mitigate.

So if don't know risk analysis, looking at the sea level rise plot you may say why do we need to do anything the uncertainty seems so large it could be anything.

Instead picture a city planner or emergency manager who knows risk analysis. There's a lot of uncertainty in the prediction. Yet the prediction doesn't show a chance of 0 or negative sea level rise. The data shows its coming in on the high side increasing both the likelihood and impact of the risk.

What would you do. Ignore it or adapt your resources to plan for and mitigate?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
Lets get my point straight. I'm not disagreeing with global warming or saying that we cannot determine what is going on (data and observations). I'm saying that the models suck.
Oh.

Well the good news is the models get better. (Compare the first IPCC surface temperature predictions to the third and notice that while the uncertainty diminished the actual temperature still fits inside all three ranges). Second as I tried to demonstrate above the models are good enough to make meaningful decisions on how to mitigate and prevent the worst of the effects.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
Anyone that complains about exact certainty likely hasn't been exposed to a technical field, especially the hard sciences. Nearly everything past bio 101, chem 101, or physics 101 deals with probability distributions. From P-orbitals to photo tunneling to population growth. Also, very quickly one hits against easy, well defined problems that are analytically unsolvable. The only solution is an approximation with some acceptable amount of error.

The great part is that they show the uncertainty. That in and of itself is a great thing. Because from there we can let policy makers know the most important aspect of the issue, which way the temperature is going and what the trends show. Is it going up, down, or are we nearing steady state? The models unanimously show us going up and the data has been aligning with that prediction.

The IPCC reports show a wide range of scenarios. Some show the effect of policy change that would limit CO2 while others show "business as usual" growth. Others weigh portions of the climate model differently. There are a wide range of options for researches to compare our current and historical data to. This isn't a weakness in the model, this is its strength. We have a wide view of different possibilities, which gives us the best perspective on the future.

Just because we can't pin down an exact temperature at an exact date doesn't mean all the research should called into question. I think of it like local weather predictions. They never get it within the exact degree or the exact amount of rain, but its good enough to let me know if I need to wear a coat or not.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,162
146
Anyone that complains about exact certainty likely hasn't been exposed to a technical field, especially the hard sciences. Nearly everything past bio 101, chem 101, or physics 101 deals with probability distributions. From P-orbitals to photo tunneling to population growth. Also, very quickly one hits against easy, well defined problems that are analytically unsolvable. The only solution is an approximation with some acceptable amount of error.

The great part is that they show the uncertainty. That in and of itself is a great thing. Because from there we can let policy makers know the most important aspect of the issue, which way the temperature is going and what the trends show. Is it going up, down, or are we nearing steady state? The models unanimously show us going up and the data has been aligning with that prediction.

The IPCC reports show a wide range of scenarios. Some show the effect of policy change that would limit CO2 while others show "business as usual" growth. Others weigh portions of the climate model differently. There are a wide range of options for researches to compare our current and historical data to. This isn't a weakness in the model, this is its strength. We have a wide view of different possibilities, which gives us the best perspective on the future.

Just because we can't pin down an exact temperature at an exact date doesn't mean all the research should called into question. I think of it like local weather predictions. They never get it within the exact degree or the exact amount of rain, but its good enough to let me know if I need to wear a coat or not.
Thanks Subyman. You said what I was trying to get across better than I could. :thumbsup:
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Keep waiting for the almost totally needless airlines to be shut down by mass Believer protests, keep not hearing about it. It's incredibly sad when even Believers don't Believe in their own beliefs... :(
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY