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

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
This throws the theory out.

"Scientists are floored by what’s happening in the Arctic right now"

Not really. Remember, MMGW works in mysterious ways. It's not been very long ago that we were assured MMGW would shut down the Atlantic Conveyor (AMOC) and therefore usher in a new Ice Age.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
I thought he said Antarctic and thought it was weird that it was cooling.

Honestly, I'd love the uneven-ness of the warming explained. Thats an important part of the article other than just attributing it generically to MMGW. Why the polarity? Literally. Its not like heat rose North. If you were to arbitrarily invert that picture its meaningless in terms of how we orient the planet and would drive home the point that something is going on that lacks an explanation.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,048
4,106
136
I thought he said Antarctic and thought it was weird that it was cooling.

Honestly, I'd love the uneven-ness of the warming explained. Thats an important part of the article other than just attributing it generically to MMGW. Why the polarity? Literally. Its not like heat rose North. If you were to arbitrarily invert that picture its meaningless in terms of how we orient the planet and would drive home the point that something is going on that lacks an explanation.
Heat doesn't "rise" north. It moves to cooler areas, which are at the poles, generally.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,161
146
I thought he said Antarctic and thought it was weird that it was cooling.

Honestly, I'd love the uneven-ness of the warming explained. Thats an important part of the article other than just attributing it generically to MMGW. Why the polarity? Literally. Its not like heat rose North. If you were to arbitrarily invert that picture its meaningless in terms of how we orient the planet and would drive home the point that something is going on that lacks an explanation.
Heat doesn't "rise" north. It moves to cooler areas, which are at the poles, generally.
I mean, holy shit. This is like thermo 101. Isn't it amazing how people who don't understand basic physics are just absolutely sure they must be right?

Heat flows from warm to cold. The tropics are warm, the poles are cold. Heat will flow from the tropics to the poles. It's why hurricanes move from the equator to the poles.



Overvolt why do you deny basic physics?
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,161
146
Not hard for me to change my opinion at all on this topic. When I personally observe catastrophe in the REAL world (not in the models), I would start buying in. My personal experience is continual improvement, year on year. Zero threats to the food supply, etc...
When I personally experience a cat crash a car then I'll believe that I shouldn't ride in a car with a driving cat. :colbert:


 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
I mean, holy shit. This is like thermo 101. Isn't it amazing how people who don't understand basic physics are just absolutely sure they must be right?

Heat flows from warm to cold. The tropics are warm, the poles are cold. Heat will flow from the tropics to the poles. It's why hurricanes move from the equator to the poles.



Overvolt why do you deny basic physics?
Because the antarctic is the south pole last I checked. So apparently thermo 101 isn't the answer :p.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,512
139
106
Because the antarctic is the south pole last I checked. So apparently thermo 101 isn't the answer :p.
Actually this is one of the few things Paratus has right and that is heat will flow from warm to cold via some means. The Antarctic could still be cooling even as heat is transported south. Could be the heat is absorbed by the Ocean. Could be something else we do not understand.

That's what is great about climate science. We know so little but (some anyway) think we know everything.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,062
6,043
136
Actually this is one of the few things Paratus has right and that is heat will flow from warm to cold via some means. The Antarctic could still be cooling even as heat is transported south. Could be the heat is absorbed by the Ocean. Could be something else we do not understand.

That's what is great about climate science. We know so little but (some anyway) think we know everything.
So Paratus has been wrong about many things? Any examples?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,499
3,004
126
Because the antarctic is the south pole last I checked. So apparently thermo 101 isn't the answer :p.
The two poles are incredibly different from one another. One being an ocean and the other a whole continent. The polar vortex around Antarctica helps keep it thermally isolated from the rest of the planet. This is resistance to change, not immunity.

As for your claim, on what basis do you claim Antarctica has cooled?
Because they do claim it has warmed.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,161
146
So Paratus has been wrong about many things? Any examples?
Dphantom and I tend to disagree about what is actually known and understood about the climate. While there's more to do with respect to modeling the climate, (look at the forcings I posted earlier some still have significant error bars), the basics are understood more than well enough to take meaningful action.

There's nothing on the order of dropping the ether in favor of electromagnetic propagation of waves and relativity waiting to supplant climate theory.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
Dphantom and I tend to disagree about what is actually known and understood about the climate. While there's more to do with respect to modeling the climate, (look at the forcings I posted earlier some still have significant error bars), the basics are understood more than well enough to take meaningful action.
.
Apparently enough is understood to also justify meaningless and counterproductive action as well. The new EPA regs will help move more manufacturing to the absolute environmental cesspool that is China THUS CAUSING MORE NET ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE than doing nothing. Not only will China emit more CO2, they emit a whole slew of real toxins into the atmosphere. Clueless fucking pols doing absolutely retarded things because some priests cloaked in science garments tell them to do it.

Climate change warriors are doing more damage to the planet than simple CO2 could ever hope to (if you buy their bullshit that CO2 is bad for the planet).

Blood pressure rising, rage increasing, must.... control..... it.....
 
Last edited:

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
The two poles are incredibly different from one another. One being an ocean and the other a whole continent. The polar vortex around Antarctica helps keep it thermally isolated from the rest of the planet. This is resistance to change, not immunity.

As for your claim, on what basis do you claim Antarctica has cooled?
Because they do claim it has warmed.
Because the temperature anomaly was negative in the picture
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,161
146
Because the temperature anomaly was negative in the picture
You do realize that picture was for January 2016. The Northern Hemisphere is supposed to be in winter and the Southern Hemisphere is in summer. Yet the artic is much much warmer than normal and the Antarctic is slightly cooler than normal.

Seems kind of strange doesn't it. :hmm:
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,499
3,004
126
Because the temperature anomaly was negative in the picture
That is why we do not view these things in a single moment. A single data point.

Instead we view climate as the totality of many data points, over many months or several years. Because anything less is called Weather, and Weather is not Climate.

Take El Nino for instance. A weather event alone increases global temperatures for more than a year. Followed by a La Nina that lowers global temp for a roughly equal time. It takes multiple readings for 4 or 5 years to create a single average that is not corrupted by that weather.

To view a month and argue Climate, is to bring a snowball into Congress and proclaim victory. That just does not work.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,161
146
That is why we do not view these things in a single moment. A single data point.

Instead we view climate as the totality of many data points, over many months or several years. Because anything less is called Weather, and Weather is not Climate.

Take El Nino for instance. A weather event alone increases global temperatures for more than a year. Followed by a La Nina that lowers global temp for a roughly equal time. It takes multiple readings for 4 or 5 years to create a single average that is not corrupted by that weather.

To view a month and argue Climate, is to bring a snowball into Congress and proclaim victory. That just does not work.
Well how about 35 years worth of El Niño and La Niña cycles? What does this chart I posted earlier say about the climate?

 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,048
4,106
136
Well how about 35 years worth of El Niño and La Niña cycles? What does this chart I posted earlier say about the climate?

Hoax, obviously.

Big science is all in on it, and are being passionately fought by the heroes in the oil industry.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
It seems that OP has no fucking clue about how climate works at all.
And neither does a top MIT scientist? There are PLENTY of solid climate scientists that aren't peddling the sky is falling meme. I listen to all of them. It is rather telling that climate change proponents refuse to debate them.

James Hansen, the godfather of this madness predicted that parts of New York would be underwater by 2000 based on his models. And yet people still think he has a fucking clue.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he has called "climate alarmism."[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,499
3,004
126
James Hansen, the godfather of this madness predicted that parts of New York would be underwater by 2000 based on his models. And yet people still think he has a fucking clue.
I examined that one myself, and found it to be lacking in substance.
It is explained thus:
1988, CO2 was about 350ppm. So that's an interview with off the cuff speculation of the effect of 700ppm CO2. We have many years to wait to see if that comes true or not.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
I examined that one myself, and found it to be lacking in substance.
It is explained thus:
1988, CO2 was about 350ppm. So that's an interview with off the cuff speculation of the effect of 700ppm CO2. We have many years to wait to see if that comes true or not.
Do you think he tampered with data?


Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.

Original version Altered version
The changes in Reykjavik, Iceland were particularly heinous – because they were specifically objected to by the Icelandic Met Office. Meteorologist Mark Johnson contacted the senior expert at the Icelandic Met Office and asked him about NASA data tampering in iceland. Here is their exchange :
1) Are you happy with the adjustments as they stand right now?
No, I am not happy with the adjustments as they stand, but I might no be quite up to date. I don’t know if they have been making additional changes during the last 2-3 weeks.
2) Have you or any of your staff contacted or been contacted by anyone from NASA Goddard Space Institute officials?
No, but we made some contact with them about 5-6 weeks ago. Best wishes,
Trausti Jónsson senior meteorologist Icelandic Meteorological Office
The altering of Icelandic data by NASA was particularly troubling, because the cooling from 1940 to 1980 was a well known and difficult historical period in Iceland. NASA erased Iceland’s history, without even the courtesy to contact Iceland’s experts.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,373
7,161
146
Do you think he tampered with data?


[/COLOR]
So to keep the faith it's all a big conspiracy theory.

I suppose I could point out that by raising the temperature in the past the current temperature anomaly would be shown to decrease since there would be less of a change. Why Hansen would have changed the data, (if he actually did any of this), to show less warming I couldn't tell you. I guess he's just that diabolical.


Keep up the good fight brother bshole. Let no evidence sway your from the climate isn't changing or its changing but it's gonna be great or whatever argument your using today to say it's all gonna be ok.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
LOL overvolt thinks temperature gradients align with magnetic field lines.

See why it is absolutely pointless to debate these topics on forums?
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
So to keep the faith it's all a big conspiracy theory.

I suppose I could point out that by raising the temperature in the past the current temperature anomaly would be shown to decrease since there would be less of a change. Why Hansen would have changed the data, (if he actually did any of this), to show less warming I couldn't tell you. I guess he's just that diabolical.


Keep up the good fight brother bshole. Let no evidence sway your from the climate isn't changing or its changing but it's gonna be great or whatever argument your using today to say it's all gonna be ok.
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.

On Wednesday, a group of prominent scientists published a commentary faulting colleagues who have published papers downplaying or dismissing the significance of a 13-year slowdown in warming rates at the planet’s surface.


“We shouldn’t sweep the early 2000s warming slowdown under the rug,” said Penn State meteorology professor Michael Mann, one of 11 authors of the commentary published in Nature Climate Change.
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?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY