• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mysticjbyrd said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5

--Yes, the land temp record

Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6

--Coincides with suburban sprawl. What do you think you are measuring exactly with weather station data?

Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase."

--I really don't think its this simple as we've had a stable complex climate for I'm guessing ~3.5 billion years. Several different feedback mechanisms exist. The climate as a whole is little understood. They can build the LHC and expect to find the higgs boson at a certain energy but you stick a buoy in the water and are surprised its difficult to reach above 30C. That tells me the model is really failing to predict the mechanisms behind the climate. I don't mind learn as you go. With climate there is no choice. But why talk out your arse while doing so. In my opinion you'd actually expect a large lag time between decreased solar output and a downward revision in the forcing, which I believe is why the trend after 1998 isn't nearly as strong. The climate doesn't react nearly as quickly as you make it sound. It'll be until 2020 to 2030 that the dip in 2009 is noticeable in the running avg.

"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."

--Yea, the Ocean temp record doesn't go back to 1880 does it? 🙂 Again... definitively prove the significance of this with regard to the system as a whole. What do you have to compare it against? Other than converting the energy it absorbed into nuke bombs and other such gimmicks. How much energy has the crust absorbed I wonder, and does the temperature of the crust matter? I'm guessing since there is no ground temperature record, nobody gives a shit. What is the significance of upper ocean warming vs lower ocean warming? Has the lower ocean even warmed at all? Many parts of it are stuck at 4C because it is under too much pressure to form ice. Water in large quantities has interesting properties. There is a planet with 400C water because intense gravity prevents it from boiling. I wonder how many "assumptions" are overlooked in such theories wrt to the unique conditions on earth.



It's impossible to attribute a single event to climate change.

--You can stop with this sentence, but no, there is more.

You can just say the frequency of events might increase. As someone that lives on the east coast, what I find far more unusual than the snow storm, is the temperatures. About a month ago, the temperature rose so much it was like a late summer outside. I had the windows, and doors open in the middle of winter. Next week it's going to get above 60 again.

--Yea, its the el nino/la nina cycle :/

--I distinctly remember that we broke a high from the late 1800s in the "hottest year ever" in 2015. Just curious, do you think that this was just an absurd statistical oddity? (Such a hot day in late 1800) Like some 18 sigma fluke in temperature?
Click to expand...
All quote!
 
Last edited:
OverVolt said:
All quote!
Click to expand...

While El Niño and La Niña do makenthe surface temperature cycle you can see from this plot La Niña is never able to cool more than the temperature rises due to global warming.

2015_nasa_enso.png
 
bshole said:
Paratus,

I would like to pick your brain for a second with some questions.

1. What is the optimum temperature for the earth and how do you know it?
2. What is the optimum atmospheric Co2 level for the earth and how do you know it?
3. What is the optimum amount of climate variation and how do you know it?
4. How do you know that forced use of alternative energy won't have unintended consequences which create economic/environmental problems are worse than problem they are intended to solve? (Ethanol is a great example).
5. How do you know that greatly enhanced research into alternative energy to make it more cost efficient than fossil fuels is not superior to forced adoption of less cost efficient renewables?
6. If global warming is bad, how come it is has not negatively impacted the world in a measurable way? (For example, mass starvation and dislocation of human populations)
7. How do you know that there is not a political agenda that has perverted the scientific process with regards to global warming? Why do so many of those involved with it act eerily similar to priests/reverends? Why do they actively oppress those with differing views?
Click to expand...

Did you ever get around to this Paratus? Just curious.
 
Paratus said:
I agree storms will occur regardless of warming. I'll ask the question in another way. Knowing what you know about weather and climate do you think last weeks storm and the ones you list above would have been less severe if warming hadn't taken place over the last 150 years?
Click to expand...

Severe storms could also occur in a cooler period. Cold air and warm moisture (relatively) can produce such storms as we have seen throughout our historical record.
 
eskimospy said:
Nope, just in the eyes of people actually evaluating the scientific evidence. Unlike climate change deniers I don't care which way the science comes down. If for some reason there was a scientific breakthrough that showed all our climate science up to this point to be wrong I wouldn't just accept it, I'd be really happy.

Unfortunately no such breakthrough has happened and there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Since that's the way the science points, that's the way I point. I encourage you to join me and dispense with the fanaticism.
Click to expand...

I'm not a denier or an alarmist, just an observer. I don't have the time or energy to investigate the claims made by the two sides, and since there is only one solution to climate change, and that's something we have to do anyway, it's a moot point.

I do find some limited entertainment in the debate though, I also think it points out some fundamental flaws in what now passes for the scientific method.
 
Jaskalas said:
First, here's Gavin of GISS openly admitting it.
Second, here's a paper trying to prove that the troposphere "hotspot" was found.
Third, here's a rebuttal of that paper.
Fourth, this graph should demonstrate the subject nicely.
Click to expand...
Ouch!

This is my biggest problem with the global warmists: They can be blatantly wrong, but instead of admitting it, they start trying to come up with reasons why they were really right. It's like when they substitute actual readings for their model because their model predicts drastically different values. Only in climate science can a model be considered accurate everywhere except where it can be verified.
 
Today is the last day for Earth. Al Gore told us ten years ago that the world would end today because of climate change.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/andrewalker/2016/01/27/al-gore-end-of-the-world-n2110731

Mr Gore told his supporters a decade ago that the world had until 27th January 2016 to end its addiction to fossil fuels or the it would come to an end. Gore did not specify what householders might expect to happen today, but he was clear that this would be the end.
Click to expand...

If you guys want to spend your last day arguing about this bullshit, go right ahead. But I believe there is a better way to spend my last day of life. Less than nine hours left if you live in the eastern time zone. Think about that.
 
boomerang said:
Today is the last day for Earth. Al Gore told us ten years ago that the world would end today because of climate change.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/andrewalker/2016/01/27/al-gore-end-of-the-world-n2110731



If you guys want to spend your last day arguing about this bullshit, go right ahead. But I believe there is a better way to spend my last day of life. Less than nine hours left if you live in the eastern time zone. Think about that.
Click to expand...


I have an excellent bottle of wine I will open to celebrate this historic event. I only wish I could be on my boat cruising instead of being buried under 70" of snow in the last 22 days.
 
dphantom said:
I have an excellent bottle of wine I will open to celebrate this historic event. I only wish I could be on my boat cruising instead of being buried under 70" of snow in the last 22 days.
Click to expand...
lol Global warming is a mite colder than one might imagine. Before corrections, anyway.
 
Paratus said:
Averaging many sensors and reading doesn't stop working just because the ocean is involved.
Click to expand...

We're supposed to take changes of 0.03 seriously... at depth?
Problem is something as "simple" and longstanding as Sea Surface... has changes in methodology that alter it 0.1 at a time. The noise is FAR larger than the signal that you would have us follow.

The notion we have an accurate reading is nothing short of a lie.
Law of statistical averages doesn't save a flawed methodology.

figure-35.png
Click to expand...
 
300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data
Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

NOAA scientists upwardly adjusted temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.
Click to expand...
 
mysticjbyrd said:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
Click to expand...


Actually these and other questions are the reasons that I am a skeptic. I don't know how you can answer them without doubt creeping into your mind.

I would like to pick your brain for a second with some questions.

1. What is the optimum temperature for the earth and how do you know it?
2. What is the optimum atmospheric Co2 level for the earth and how do you know it?
3. What is the optimum amount of climate variation and how do you know it?
4. How do you know that forced use of alternative energy won't have unintended consequences which create economic/environmental problems are worse than problem they are intended to solve? (Ethanol is a great example).
5. How do you know that greatly enhanced research into alternative energy to make it more cost efficient than fossil fuels is not superior to forced adoption of less cost efficient renewables?
6. If global warming is bad, how come it is has not negatively impacted the world in a measurable way? (For example, mass starvation and dislocation of human populations)
7. How do you know that there is not a political agenda that has perverted the scientific process with regards to global warming? Why do so many of those involved with it act eerily similar to priests/reverends? Why do they actively oppress those with differing views?
Click to expand...
 
From the you can't make this shit up file....


“Indeed, teachers’ assessment of the scientific consensus is intertwined with their personal conclusions about global warming and its causes,” the study noted, later adding that for “political or cultural conservatives, simply offering teachers more traditional science education may not lead to better classroom practice.”

This seems like a balanced approach to such a controversial topic — fairly present both sides of the debate and let kids weigh both arguments. But that’s not how climate science should be taught, according to Rosenau and his colleagues.
​
“Worse, half of the surveyed teachers have allowed students to discuss the supposed ‘controversy’ over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported conclusion,” Rosenau, adding that most teachers were unaware of the “consensus” on global warming.
Click to expand...


Jesus, talk about thought police.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/12/t...ming-denial-in-science-classes/#ixzz3zyjIJVvZ
 
I'd really like to see the proof for the "correct option" on this one.

Yet, when asked “what proportion of climate scientists think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities?”—only 30% of middle-school and 45% of high-school science teachers selected the correct option of “81 to 100%.”
Click to expand...

Edit: Then again 'no'...I now remember that "scientific" survey by Cook. What a joke. In reality, only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. This is a perfect example of what believer "science" looks like.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
This is literally the exact same argument that creationists use against evolution. It's exactly as valid here.

Glad to know that you support 'teaching the controversy' when it comes to creationism and evolution too. Buckshot will be so happy!
Click to expand...

Same argument.... VASTLY different evidence.

Carbon dating, radiometric dating, ring species, genetic markers, the geologic column, documented speciation events in the lab, evolution observed in nature, etc..... a literal world of evidence

VS

models that consistently OVERESTIMATE warming and by growing margins. An almost 0% correct prediction rate for "climate scientists". I am completely unaware of a SINGLE correct prediction from climate scientists over the last three decades. I am aware of hundreds of failed predictions.
 
bshole said:
Same argument.... VASTLY different evidence.

Carbon dating, radiometric dating, ring species, genetic markers, the geologic column, documented speciation events in the lab, evolution observed in nature, etc..... a literal world of evidence

VS

models that consistently OVERESTIMATE warming and by growing margins. An almost 0% correct prediction rate for "climate scientists". I am completely unaware of a SINGLE correct prediction from climate scientists over the last three decades. I am aware of hundreds of failed predictions.
Click to expand...

Well that's because you ignore them for ideological reasons.

Again, you've become so desperate not to accept the overwhelming evidence that you've been reduced to creationist tactics. That's how illogical you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top