There wasn't really a global warming "hiatus." Corrected analyses show no slowdown

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
Oh good, we're back to cooling again. I'm glad this disproves the concept of energy conservation.


This is NCDC data. The same people who brought you the study this thread is all about.

A 10 year data set is far to short to make any meaningful conclusions. I present this as informational to the topic under discussion.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
No, it's that there is no evidence that a scientific consensus existed that New York would be underwater by 2015 (or anything even remotely close to that). Impugning the current scientific consensus based on predictions that were not part of it is exactly the type of "global cooling" denialism that we have seen before.
We faced a decade of less snow in the 1990s, and the brain trust linearly extrapolated it with no underlying understanding.

They did the same linear extrapolation with the 80s-90s warming trend. After the data failed to follow this prediction they found some ship buckets to wash over multiple sets of contradictory data. Adjusting the data to protect the linear method. The temperature trend of the 80s and 90s is claimed to continue... by a single source, by including less reliable ocean data.

Should we guess which data set you firmly stand behind? The outlier with the most bias confirmation. You actually think 2014 was the warmest year on record. You will stand behind it when they proclaim 2015 the warmest, two back-to-back "warmest ever". The settled science brand will be very popular in the following year.

You would be well served to take your own advice. Sometimes when science tells you things you don't want to hear it's not because everyone is conspiring to trick you. It would be easier to take your complaints seriously if you hadn't alleged conspiracies in data collection and reporting repeatedly across numerous disciplines when they said things you find ideologically inconvenient.

It's disappointing for political conflict to escalate when extremists go unchallenged in proclaiming no snow, CO2 fueled hurricanes, or NYC underwater. It would be useful for both sides to admit going too far. When given the chance to denounce such propaganda, I'd rather not see you roll in it.

Future discussions would yield less conflict and more results if they focused on agreeable plans of action. Instead of whether ship buckets definitely protect a linear extrapolation of a 20 year trend. Because if you really want to go down that road you are going to be in for one hell of a ride as the AMO turns cold and your side remains engaged in rather duplicitous conduct.

Arguments gain credibility if they drop outliers and extremism.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
326
126
The AMO is now turning negative and solar activity has been on a downward trend the last couple of decades. Somewhat concerning for NH temperatures.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
Oh good, we're back to cooling again. I'm glad this disproves the concept of energy conservation.

Um no, it scientifically proves to an utter certainty that the United States cooled in the last decade (that says NOTHING about whether the world as a whole cooled). What it also demonstrates is that not a single climate model from a decade ago predicted this regional cooling in the United States. Let me repeat that, NOT A SINGLE FUCKING CLIMATE MODEL predicted the decade long regional cooling in the United States. Settled science my ass.

PREDICTIONS MATTER! If you want to play in the field of science, it is your predictions that prove or disprove your theories. Jesus Christ, no other area of science acts like this.

Are scientists using this new information to improve their models or are they pretending it never happened?
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
For an interesting debate between climate scientists, see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass

One of the speakers against the warmists was Richard Lindzen:

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 he retired 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 IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change[3] and what he has called "climate alarmism".[4]

He has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming.[64] In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, Lindzen said:[65]

We're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.

In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and says that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were[66]

Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
For me personally, the strongest argument in support of the warmists is the fact that so many idiots oppose them. I ask myself over and over, how can I possibly be right in my skepticism if Fox News agrees with me? How can I be right if Jon Stewart disagrees?

If only the data didn't so clearly come down on the side of the skeptics......
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
For me personally, the strongest argument in support of the warmists is the fact that so many idiots oppose them. I ask myself over and over, how can I possibly be right in my skepticism if Fox News agrees with me? How can I be right if Jon Stewart disagrees?

If only the data didn't so clearly come down on the side of the skeptics......
I don't think the data are on the side of the skeptics per se, just on the side of the warmists being wrong. One could make any number of flat out wrong predictions and observations showing that the Earth is round, and yet it still IS round.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
I don't think the data are on the side of the skeptics per se, just on the side of the warmists being wrong. One could make any number of flat out wrong predictions and observations showing that the Earth is round, and yet it still IS round.

Yea I said that all wrong. I meant it more like you stated.

I don't know anything about the ramifications of acidifying ocean but the warmists aren't really pushing that angle very hard. From their lack of urgency I ASSUME it won't be much of an issue. It would really suck if it killed all the fish and caused massive starvation and harm to humanity. It would also be somewhat ironic in that fear mongered the wrong issue (climate change over ocean acidification).
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Yea I said that all wrong. I meant it more like you stated.

I don't know anything about the ramifications of acidifying ocean but the warmists aren't really pushing that angle very hard. From their lack of urgency I ASSUME it won't be much of an issue. It would really suck if it killed all the fish and caused massive starvation and harm to humanity. It would also be somewhat ironic in that fear mongered the wrong issue (climate change over ocean acidification).
Agreed. I am assuming that none of this is going to be much of an issue for humanity, but I also try to be cognizant that we've put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and that climate science is in its infancy. There could be some really nasty things that happen from excess CO2 that we can't see because we simply don't have working models of Earth's climate. For instance, there have been mammoths preserved in ice with buttercups still in mid-feeding, mammoths frozen quickly enough that the meat is edible. Some expeditions have actually cooked and eaten mammoth. Therefore climate, at least locally, can swing quite far quite fast, like an extreme Colorado weather swing but not returning to the same equilibrium for thousands of years. Given that and the extreme difficulty and cost associated with sequestering CO2, I'd rather find sensible, affordable solutions (NOT cap and trade) that move us away from a fossil-based economy. If the warmists turn out to be incorrect, at least we haven't wrecked our economy. If the warmists turn out to be correct, at least maybe I can eat crow without having to tread water. :)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
If the warmists turn out to be correct, at least maybe I can eat crow without having to tread water. :)

If they are correct, 400ppm was already the tipping point for saying goodbye to coastal cities / Florida. The only reason they exist today is that ice volume of that magnitude takes considerable time to melt.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
If they are correct, 400ppm was already the tipping point for saying goodbye to coastal cities / Florida. The only reason they exist today is that ice volume of that magnitude takes considerable time to melt.
Possibly, although if they cannot predict what will happen in a decade I have zero faith in their ability to predict what will happen in a hundred years. In any case, smarter people might have set the "tipping point" at, say, 427 ppm. The odds of any particular important point in nature being more or less evenly divisible by 100 are nil - that's a human construct selected as a boogie man. Not that I consider such a tipping point as something which exists or is even calculable in a chaotic system. Nonetheless, honor the threat. Subsidize action to reduce fossil fuel use to the extent it is reasonably affordable, especially like distributed solar where we get a twofer. Heavily fund research into such, and into direct sequestration just in case we need it in a hurry. If it turns out to be unnecessary, well, scientific research generally produces some useful things even if it fails in its stated goals.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Does it matter if it was exactly 400ppm or not?
More to a greater point - what ppm can we reasonably stop at?

There is no nuclear initiative in Congress. Even if that imaginary legislation passed yesterday, the US has to spend decades shifting towards it... the rest of the world to reluctantly follow, if ever.

No one alive today will see CO2 stop rising, and that's even if we impliment all the senible plans we have available. We are destined to go well beyond a simple doubling. 300, 400, 600ppm are just notches to add to our belt.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Does it matter if it was exactly 400ppm or not?
More to a greater point - what ppm can we reasonably stop at?

There is no nuclear initiative in Congress. Even if that imaginary legislation passed yesterday, the US has to spend decades shifting towards it... the rest of the world to reluctantly follow, if ever.

No one alive today will see CO2 stop rising, and that's even if we impliment all the senible plans we have available. We are destined to go well beyond a simple doubling. 300, 400, 600ppm are just notches to add to our belt.

To that point, what would 600ppm of CO2 really do? Climate sensitivity estimates are still all over the place.

Also, how would it compare to water vapor at that point? Seems like you would have to almost triple CO2 before it started being the same magnitude as water vapor as a major contributor to warming. I don't see CO2 concentrations tripling in my lifetime. And at some point, its all moot because there won't be enough fossil fuels to keep increasing levels anyways.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,331
28,600
136
Does it matter if it was exactly 400ppm or not?
More to a greater point - what ppm can we reasonably stop at?

There is no nuclear initiative in Congress. Even if that imaginary legislation passed yesterday, the US has to spend decades shifting towards it... the rest of the world to reluctantly follow, if ever.

No one alive today will see CO2 stop rising, and that's even if we impliment all the senible plans we have available. We are destined to go well beyond a simple doubling. 300, 400, 600ppm are just notches to add to our belt.

There are no initiatives because skeptics deniers keep public opinion from progressing at the pace that it should be.

I suggest that if we ever suffer massive coastline loss, deniers should be forced to live in the ocean so their homes can be given to people in the affected areas.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
PREDICTIONS MATTER! If you want to play in the field of science, it is your predictions that prove or disprove your theories. Jesus Christ, no other area of science acts like this.

Here's a prediction that I bet will remain accurate for the rest of our lives.

Climate.jpg



There are no initiatives because skeptics deniers keep public opinion from progressing at the pace that it should be.

I suggest that if we ever suffer massive coastline loss, deniers should be forced to live in the ocean so their homes can be given to people in the affected areas.

No, there are no initiatives because the ones you propose are stupid and people see that. It also doesn't help your case that your side generally just says "collective action problem" when asked why they personally only make token actions and symbolic lifestyle changes against the calamity they say is coming.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
There are no initiatives because skeptics deniers keep public opinion from progressing at the pace that it should be.

I suggest that if we ever suffer massive coastline loss, deniers should be forced to live in the ocean so their homes can be given to people in the affected areas.

Is it the pace of public opinion that you have issues with or the direction? Be honest. Keep in mind, the alarmists are the ones who control the media.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
There are no initiatives because skeptics deniers keep public opinion from progressing at the pace that it should be.

The multitudes of false claims from alarmists have hurt credibility and slowed progress on the issue. Also...I'm concerned there's no underlying support for a nuclear initiative, even though it's our only immediate solution as we continue to develop solar.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The multitudes of false claims from alarmists have hurt credibility and slowed progress on the issue. Also...I'm concerned there's no underlying support for a nuclear initiative, even though it's our only immediate solution as we continue to develop solar.

Swanson's Law may eventually make solar a realistic economic proposition for some but not all use cases at some point. That is, if the warming cultists can be prevented from fucking up the world economy in the meantime and preventing that natural progress from ever happening. If they had their way we would be fossilized in time, sorta like how the Ming Dynasty in China turned its back on advancement in the 15th century, only instead of the Great Wall our completely pointless endeavor would have been with 1970s solar panels covering the Earth and none of the progress of the last 40 years.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,331
28,600
136
Is it the pace of public opinion that you have issues with or the direction? Be honest. Keep in mind, the alarmists are the ones who control the media.
Oh, well, if you say the alarmists control the media then I guess that is that. :colbert:

It is the pace. The people that are qualified to form their own opinion regarding what the data says all agree that we are causing more heat to be trapped unless they are being paid by the fossil fuel industry to say otherwise. It was the same with cigarettes, the same with leaded products and it is the same with CO2. We should have moved past the "we aren't sure if man is the cause" debate LONG ago. We should have started the "how do we stop this from occurring" debate LONG ago.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Oh, well, if you say the alarmists control the media then I guess that is that. :colbert:

It is the pace. The people that are qualified to form their own opinion regarding what the data says all agree that we are causing more heat to be trapped unless they are being paid by the fossil fuel industry to say otherwise. It was the same with cigarettes, the same with leaded products and it is the same with CO2. We should have moved past the "we aren't sure if man is the cause" debate LONG ago. We should have started the "how do we stop this from occurring" debate LONG ago.

So now its about "people who are qualified to form their own opinion" and not about public opinion. You are all over the place, as expected.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,044
33,089
136
Also...I'm concerned there's no underlying support for a nuclear initiative, even though it's our only immediate solution as we continue to develop solar.

The economics of nuclear power have been impacted by the glut of cheap natural gas. A few operators are in the midst of building new reactors but I don't see much realistic demand beyond that unless the government incentivizes it or sponsors a build program.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,044
33,089
136
Swanson's Law may eventually make solar a realistic economic proposition for some but not all use cases at some point. That is, if the warming cultists can be prevented from fucking up the world economy in the meantime and preventing that natural progress from ever happening. If they had their way we would be fossilized in time, sorta like how the Ming Dynasty in China turned its back on advancement in the 15th century, only instead of the Great Wall our completely pointless endeavor would have been with 1970s solar panels covering the Earth and none of the progress of the last 40 years.

You may not be aware of where the market has gone. PV solar is already the second highest source of installed new generation behind natural gas and gaining. Now the debate largely concerns storage and how to keep the grid stable with variable sources of generation, not if rewnewables are going to be the future.