• 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.

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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dphantom said:
Had to read back further to see. I skipped over the relevant post you were referring to. I would say SS is speculating out loud. But if that was proposed, and an unknown body was effecting some increase in temperature on Earth, then it would seem to me we would have to be in a significant cooling trend that would off set the warming by this unknown body to arrive at the current plateau in temperature based on satellite measurements. I am unaware of anyone studying climate that says we are in such a cooling trend...yet 😉

But lets have some fun with this. Let's say there was an unknown body and it was warming Earth. Now it all of a sudden disappears into a wormhole. The current temp plateau might be explained by residual radiation/energy from the body and its exit via a wormhole. Once the radiation/energy disappears, we now enter, over the next 1000 years say, another Ice Age. How about that for a working hypothesis. 😛
Click to expand...

I think you have a sound working hypothesis. 😀
 
Paratus said:
The Earth's climate changes on the order of 10,000 years or more due to eccentricity of its orbit and changes in the Earths tilt.

What are the trends in tilt and eccentricity for the planets that are supposedly heating?

Do you know? Did you even know those type of orbital changes can impact global temperatures and have nothing to do with Earths temperature ?

Or did you blindly accept that some planets are warming and its likely caused by SOMETHING (ooooh spooky) we don't know about. 🙄
I don't accept that we don't know's going on.

I will meet you half way however and accept that you don't know what the hell is going on. 😉
Click to expand...
lol Okay, we've established that I don't know what the hell is going on and you do. Pray explain it to us unenlightened - together with documentation showing where it was predicted. We don't need more unconfirmable predictions after the fact, thank you.
 
Paratus said:
I think you have a sound working hypothesis. 😀
Click to expand...

The question is, do you have a working hypothesis that mirrors your expertise? If so, I haven't seen evidence of that here. Is this your professed specialty? Because I am failing to see how this makes you an unqualified expert on global warming.

https://targetstudy.com/courses/me-heat-power.html

Your specialty does NOT extend to global warming, no matter what you try to tell yourself and convince others to the contrary. Probably nobody pops by your cubicle to ask how you are doing on a rocket engine redesign, and then wants to know what you think about global warming for a couple of hours. But here, you think that misplaced specialty somehow gives you impeccable clout, I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

It does give you something to fall back on and try to ground your argument in, but in fact, you are just as clueless as the rest of us are about global warming, the possible side effects, how to mitigate it, and all the rest of it. If I had a choice, I would rather discuss global warming with a knowledgeable meteorologist, because they would have a lot more practical knowledge and experience about it than you could ever hope to have.

Chances are, if you are in rocket engine design, then your chosen specialty also happens to be contributing to global warming on a global scale too, so let's not trivialize and forget that fact. Your professions choices in rocket engine designs, will definitely have an effect on global warming. And considering all the rocket engine testing and launches, a significantly large one globally, at that.

Even commercial planes are now coming under EPA scrutiny for emissions. I'm sure your specialties turn is just around the corner. So you better reload your crack pipe, stay up late, and figure out what your profession is going to do about it, because arguing about global warming on a message board is not going to fix your specialties contributions to the problem.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/micheli...n-a-global-push-to-reduce-airplane-emissions/

Honestly I'm really not too surprised that someone who's profession is a proven contributor to global warming is going to be a bit touchy and defensive about the subject as you clearly are, crack pipe comments all.
 
Last edited:
SlickSnake said:
The question is, do you have a working hypothesis that mirrors your expertise? If so, I haven't seen evidence of that here. Is this your professed specialty? If so, I am failing to see how this makes you an unqualified expert on global warming.

https://targetstudy.com/courses/me-heat-power.html

Your specialty does NOT extend to global warming, no matter what you try to tell yourself and convince others to the contrary. Probably nobody pops by your cubicle to ask how you are doing on a rocket engine redesign, and then wants to know what you think about global warming for a couple of hours. But here, you think that misplaced specialty somehow gives you impeccable clout, I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

It does give you something to fall back on and try to ground your argument in, but in fact, you are just as clueless as the rest of us are about global warming, the possible side effects, how to mitigate it, and all the rest of it. If I had a choice, I would rather discuss global warming with a knowledgeable meteorologist, because they would have a lot more practical knowledge and experience about it than you could ever hope to have.

Chances are, if you are in rocket engine design, then your chosen specialty also happens to be contributing to global warming on a global scale too, let's not forget that. Isn't that interesting to contemplate. So your choices in engine designs, will definitely have an effect on global warming. And considering all the rocket engine testing and launches, a significantly large one globally, at that.

Even commercial planes are now coming under EPA scrutiny for emissions. I'm sure your specialties turn is just around the corner. So you better reload your crack pipe, stay up late, and figure out what your profession is going to do about it, because arguing about global warming on a message board is not going to fix your specialties contributions to the problem.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/micheli...n-a-global-push-to-reduce-airplane-emissions/

Honestly I'm really not too surprised that someone who's profession is a proven contributor to global warming is going to be a bit touchy and defensive about the subject as you clearly are, crack pipe comments all.
Click to expand...

We don't need expertise on a subject, if we rely on the knowledge of those that do.
 
sandorski said:
We don't need expertise on a subject, if we rely on the knowledge of those that do.
Click to expand...

😕

serveimage
 
Last edited:
sandorski said:
....and?
Click to expand...

He's not a qualified expert on global warming if that is what you are trying to convey with your comment.

By that logic, why not ask a car repairman about global warming because cars contribute to it, don't they? So surely the car repairman knows all about global warming too, right? For all I know, he's an assembly line grunt producing the rocket engines, and not even designing them at all. Because I would imagine the engine failure rates would skyrocket if they let illegals who can't speak English do a job on the cheap that a qualified person should be doing, and I bet there are a whole lot more degrees than available jobs in his specialty.

It's like a TV designer claiming their specialty means they now know everything about broadcasting at a TV network.
 
Climate Change: Where is the Science?

As I believe I've expressed before, this issue is a political issue and on several fronts. The obvious stares us in the face. Politician's that we don't trust, (this of course excludes Democrat voters who blindly trust Dem politicians) have been telling us for decades that the sky was in fact falling and that it would fall very, very soon.

The behind the scenes politics is that those same politicians fund the scientific community. I know that when I was paying the salary of other people I expected them to do what I wanted them to do. Anyone that thinks it's any different with this issue is as naive as one could be. Just as any government agency run by someone with a modicum of smarts knows that you spend the entire budget allotted to you to preclude getting a smaller budget next year, science funded through political methods knows damned well who their master is and pleasing the master is an important thing to do.

Science is not telling us what is happening, politicians are telling us what they want us to believe is happening through their proxies, the scientists they employ. I can understand that on the surface this sounds pretty sour. But having been lied to by our political system for many, many years, I have a tendency to look at anything they expound upon breathlessly with a jaundiced eye. This was not the case when I was a young lad and not worldly enough to realize that there were people very willing to say anything to put one over on me as well as on the masses if their moxie was of grander proportions.

I have heard the cry of "Wolf!" too many times to now believe that this time there really is in fact a Wolf.

While I don't agree in totality with all the following bullet points from the linked article, they are close enough to better express my feelings on the subject of global warming climate change.

The climate change alarm scientists have lost credibility because too many of them have behaved not as scientists but as politicians. They will regain the trust of the people when they rediscover their principles and comport themselves accordingly, to wit:
  • They debate each other honestly and respectfully, including the skeptics and 'deniers', with no recourse to ad hominem attacks or defamation lawsuits.
  • Instead of firing, defunding and/or persecuting scientists with whom they disagree, they advocate for funding for research into alternate theories by those same rival scientists on a comparable scale as their own results-oriented research.
  • They express their honest scientific opinions in terms of relative probabilities. '100% certainty' in a matter as complex as the entire Earth's climate for the next hundred years should be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.
  • They rebuke any and all meteorologists or news readers who ascribe any significance whatsoever to transient local weather events as proof, or even evidence, of anthropomorphic climate change.
  • They discontinue all scare tactics and sensationalism, and stick to objective reporting of measurement and rational hypotheses.
  • They discontinue hiding behind consensus or authority, and instead demonstrate the courage of their facts, logic, and the track record of their predictions over the long term.
  • They stop papering over the differences of opinion within the alarm community in order to present a unified public front; keep the discussion transparent.
  • They publicly disclaim any among them who make anti-scientific claims such as that "the debate is over" or "the science is settled". Yes, that means Al Gore and anyone else. Anyone asserting such a preposterous thing should take the statement to its logical conclusion by resigning his or her position and/or returning any unspent research grant money and forswearing any continuance of the same. If the world is round not flat, we don't need to fund research and deploy hardware to ascertain the shape of the earth. If the debate is over, then go home.
In short, we will restore to them the trust and respect to which science and scientists aspire when they demonstrate that they are worthy of it.
Click to expand...

Taking the low road is to accept blindly what one is told. Take the high road, peel back the curtain and see what is really going on behind that curtain. Then demand a change. Claiming that the "science is settled" tells me that you're taking that low road.
 
I'm not a climate scientist. The only one around here who has done real climate modeling is Subyman.

I have taken masters level heat and mass transfer classes. My job experience is electrical power system, (solar power), and external thermal control of the International Space Station.


So I have had teams of engineers doing analyses on the incident radiation on the ISS. If these analyses were wrong due to your hypothesis we'd see increased solar power or increased heating where there shouldn't be. This has not occurred.

Nor has it occurred on any other satellite. Satellites which measure everything from radio waves to gamma-rays and charged particle radiation.

It's fine if you have a hypothesis that there's a brown dwarf companion to the sun, or that space-time itself radiates. But it's not being measured anywhere.

If your hypothesis depends on increasing planetary temperatures which planets? The outer planets like Neptune and Pluto we haven't even seen a single year for these planets. So there's no easy way to predict their temps are increasing or decreasing year to year.

Plus your hypothesis needs to explain observed temperaures and climate forcings better than current theory.

I'm sorry but I don't see enough evidence to support this theory, in my opinion.
 
Paratus said:
I'm not a climate scientist. The only one around here who has done real climate modeling is Subyman.

I have taken masters level heat and mass transfer classes. My job experience is electrical power system, (solar power), and external thermal control of the International Space Station.


So I have had teams of engineers doing analyses on the incident radiation on the ISS. If these analyses were wrong due to your hypothesis we'd see increased solar power or increased heating where there shouldn't be. This has not occurred.

Nor has it occurred on any other satellite. Satellites which measure everything from radio waves to gamma-rays and charged particle radiation.

It's fine if you have a hypothesis that there's a brown dwarf companion to the sun, or that space-time itself radiates. But it's not being measured anywhere.

If your hypothesis depends on increasing planetary temperatures which planets? The outer planets like Neptune and Pluto we haven't even seen a single year for these planets. So there's no easy way to predict their temps are increasing or decreasing year to year.

Plus your hypothesis needs to explain observed temperaures and climate forcings better than current theory.

I'm sorry but I don't see enough evidence to support this theory, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree. You're not a climate expert, and even if you were it wouldn't mean that you had to be right. That being said, you're someone with a good deal of experience in several of the fields that directly relate to climate science and you make well thought out posts that are supported by evidence.

While you could say my perception of your posts is colored by the fact that we fundamentally agree, I think that high quality stuff like what you write is good no matter which side of any debate it falls on.
 
eskimospy said:
I agree. You're not a climate expert, and even if you were it wouldn't mean that you had to be right. That being said, you're someone with a good deal of experience in several of the fields that directly relate to climate science and you make well thought out posts that are supported by evidence.

While you could say my perception of your posts is colored by the fact that we fundamentally agree, I think that high quality stuff like what you write is good no matter which side of any debate it falls on.
Click to expand...

Oh Gee what a glowing show of support. Makes me lol because its predictable.
 
Paratus said:
I'm not a climate scientist. The only one around here who has done real climate modeling is Subyman.

I have taken masters level heat and mass transfer classes. My job experience is electrical power system, (solar power), and external thermal control of the International Space Station.


So I have had teams of engineers doing analyses on the incident radiation on the ISS. If these analyses were wrong due to your hypothesis we'd see increased solar power or increased heating where there shouldn't be. This has not occurred.

Nor has it occurred on any other satellite. Satellites which measure everything from radio waves to gamma-rays and charged particle radiation.

It's fine if you have a hypothesis that there's a brown dwarf companion to the sun, or that space-time itself radiates. But it's not being measured anywhere.

If your hypothesis depends on increasing planetary temperatures which planets? The outer planets like Neptune and Pluto we haven't even seen a single year for these planets. So there's no easy way to predict their temps are increasing or decreasing year to year.

Plus your hypothesis needs to explain observed temperaures and climate forcings better than current theory.

I'm sorry but I don't see enough evidence to support this theory, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Now that was a good post, with minimal bullshit. You obviously have access to data I have not seen, and probably nobody else here has, either. So why didn't you make those relevant comments in the first place without all the stupid crack pipe crap? Honestly, W T F.
 
eskimospy said:
I agree. You're not a climate expert, and even if you were it wouldn't mean that you had to be right. That being said, you're someone with a good deal of experience in several of the fields that directly relate to climate science and you make well thought out posts that are supported by evidence.

While you could say my perception of your posts is colored by the fact that we fundamentally agree, I think that high quality stuff like what you write is good no matter which side of any debate it falls on.
Click to expand...

Thanks eskimospy for the post. It makes me feel like I'm doing the right thing continuing to post evidence supported arguments.

OverVolt said:
Oh Gee what a glowing show of support. Makes me lol because its predictable.
Click to expand...

Thanks Overvolt for the post. It makes me realize I'm doing the right thing continuing to post evidence supported arguments. 😉


SlickSnake said:
Now that was a good post, with minimal bullshit. You obviously have access to data I have not seen, and probably nobody else here has, either. So why didn't you make those relevant comments in the first place without all the stupid crack pipe crap? Honestly, W T F.
Click to expand...

Honestly I wasn't sure if you were trolling or what. In a thread with a lot of just plain wrong or out there ideas, yours I think, was the furthest out there.

That being said I came off to harsh and could have explained my criticisms. Apologies. :beer:
 
OverVolt said:
Oh Gee what a glowing show of support. Makes me lol because its predictable.
Click to expand...

x2

When high quality and well thought out is defined as agreement, what else can you expect. Also, when evidence is only defined as what you agree with, again, what else can you expect.
 
sandorski said:
What points do you disagree with and why?
Click to expand...
The question of whether anthropogenic global cooling or anthropogenic global warming would win out presupposes that climate was static before the Industrial Age as well as assuming that the Earth has no feedback loops. Obviously neither is correct.
 
SlickSnake said:
Now that was a good post, with minimal bullshit. You obviously have access to data I have not seen, and probably nobody else here has, either. So why didn't you make those relevant comments in the first place without all the stupid crack pipe crap? Honestly, W T F.
Click to expand...

Try living with the knowledge that the self contempt of Conservative Brain Defect and it's projection of that hate externally has meant a million year struggle of kicking and beating you out of the fear-factor safety of your caves, that at every turn and every advance you stick your asses into the air to stop progress in its tracks out of an unconscious desire for your own extinction and that of everybody else, and additionally, for every normal mind more healthy because it's less self-divided, the quality of your actions appear to be only the product of titanic irrational stupidity all amplified by the pig-headed sneering rejection of reality due to the ignorance is bliss nature of defectiveness of truthiness-certainty.

Lots of folk resent being dragged to their deaths by what for all the world appear to be imbeciles.
 
Moonbeam said:
Lots of folk resent being dragged to their deaths by what for all the world appear to be imbeciles.
Click to expand...

What in the holy hell does this have to do with global warming? You literally do believe that we all die if we keep burning oil? ROFLMFAO!!! That is so precious. We already burned over half of it and didn't die but instead flourished on a scale never experienced in human history. If we go ahead and burn the other half.... the flourishing will end and the dark ages shall ensue.......??!! You are welcome to believe that on ZERO scientific evidence whatsoever and idle speculation, I simply lack your faith. Go to the NOAA website and see what the "experts" are claiming will happen..... it sure the hell ain't what you are claiming.
 
bshole said:
What in the holy hell does this have to do with global warming? You literally do believe that we all die if we keep burning oil? ROFLMFAO!!! That is so precious. We already burned over half of it and didn't die but instead flourished on a scale never experienced in human history. If we go ahead and burn the other half.... the flourishing will end and the dark ages shall ensue.......??!! You are welcome to believe that on ZERO scientific evidence whatsoever and idle speculation, I simply lack your faith. Go to the NOAA website and see what the "experts" are claiming will happen..... it sure the hell ain't what you are claiming.
Click to expand...

Who cares about what the experts say. I can just feel the disaster on the way. 😉
 
Moonbeam said:
Who cares about what the experts say. I can just feel the disaster on the way. 😉
Click to expand...

Then please add a date to my poll and bump my older topic here about the sleeping sheeple and how long before they finally wake up.

And marvel at my main prediction it would all start with a rising crime wave, while nearly every person told me I was full of crap.
 
SlickSnake said:
Then please add a date to my poll and bump my older topic here about the sleeping sheeple and how long before they finally wake up.

And marvel at my main prediction it would all start with a rising crime wave, while nearly every person told me I was full of crap.
Click to expand...

You realize you're still full of crap, right? 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top