Jump to content

Global Warming Pause May Disappear.


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling. I do a good bit of air dispersion modeling now and we all know that models grossly over-project. Now, to be fair, modeling climate is not nearly as dicey as predicting the days weather or dispersion of plumes into the atmosphere, but it still over projects. Now you have to think about where they obtain their data. Hundreds if not thousands of new temperature sensors have been added for data collection in recent years. Good, right? Well, not really. You have to look at where they are adding the receptors. Most every one of them are being added in places like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, LA, etc. These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range. Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

Undoubtedly, that involves subject you bring up - modeling - instead of the existing discussion regarding interpretation of existing data. That's fine, but I suggest you start a different thread. Let's try to avoid obfuscation by expansion if you don't mind.

Otherwise, if you want to critique the paper that is the subject of this particular thread, have at it.

I'd say "unbelievable" if I hadn't seen this tactic before. When confronted with actual knowledge, it is ever the way of the Faithful Follower to attempt to shift attention away from any reality that doesn't agree with his preconcieved notions.

Me, I'll take the word of the guy that does this for a living over the notions of a Believer.

You'll take the word of anyone who supports your preconceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling. I do a good bit of air dispersion modeling now and we all know that models grossly over-project. Now, to be fair, modeling climate is not nearly as dicey as predicting the days weather or dispersion of plumes into the atmosphere, but it still over projects. Now you have to think about where they obtain their data. Hundreds if not thousands of new temperature sensors have been added for data collection in recent years. Good, right? Well, not really. You have to look at where they are adding the receptors. Most every one of them are being added in places like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, LA, etc. These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range. Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

Undoubtedly, that involves subject you bring up - modeling - instead of the existing discussion regarding interpretation of existing data. That's fine, but I suggest you start a different thread. Let's try to avoid obfuscation by expansion if you don't mind.

Otherwise, if you want to critique the paper that is the subject of this particular thread, have at it.

I'd say "unbelievable" if I hadn't seen this tactic before. When confronted with actual knowledge, it is ever the way of the Faithful Follower to attempt to shift attention away from any reality that doesn't agree with his preconcieved notions.

Me, I'll take the word of the guy that does this for a living over the notions of a Believer.

A. An engineer is not a scientist

B. Regarding "actual knowledge," it doesn't occur to you that Homer might have some regarding science.

C. A CivEng Is not a climatologist, and doesn't "do this for a living." He's commenting on an area outside his area of expertise.

I don't know what it is with engineers. There's a reason the Salem hypothesis is a thing. :rolleyes:

Well, I will be the first to say that's it's not all of them. There were a few for whom I had the utmost respect. Funny, we got along just fine.

But generally, an engineer has to earn my respect. Being an engineer, they start out with a mark against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the data showing doom and gloom in the future is based on modeling. I do a good bit of air dispersion modeling now and we all know that models grossly over-project. Now, to be fair, modeling climate is not nearly as dicey as predicting the days weather or dispersion of plumes into the atmosphere, but it still over projects. Now you have to think about where they obtain their data. Hundreds if not thousands of new temperature sensors have been added for data collection in recent years. Good, right? Well, not really. You have to look at where they are adding the receptors. Most every one of them are being added in places like Atlanta, New York, Nashville, LA, etc. These are all places that suffer the heat island effect. Now that you have added more receptors in areas that are always warmer than places like Auburn and you are averaging these in with old receptors....guess what.....Warming Trends! This is the data they are using.

Even to this day when the models they have are provided data from our known past history of over 30 years the range of temperatures provided by the models are COMPLETELY outside the actual range. Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

Undoubtedly, that involves subject you bring up - modeling - instead of the existing discussion regarding interpretation of existing data. That's fine, but I suggest you start a different thread. Let's try to avoid obfuscation by expansion if you don't mind.

Otherwise, if you want to critique the paper that is the subject of this particular thread, have at it.

I'd say "unbelievable" if I hadn't seen this tactic before. When confronted with actual knowledge, it is ever the way of the Faithful Follower to attempt to shift attention away from any reality that doesn't agree with his preconcieved notions.

Me, I'll take the word of the guy that does this for a living over the notions of a Believer.

A. An engineer is not a scientist

B. Regarding "actual knowledge," it doesn't occur to you that Homer might have some regarding science.

C. A CivEng Is not a climatologist, and doesn't "do this for a living." He's commenting on an area outside his area of expertise.

I don't know what it is with engineers. There's a reason the Salem hypothesis is a thing. :rolleyes:

Well, I will be the first to say that's it's not all of them. There were a few for whom I had the utmost respect. Funny, we got along just fine.

Yeah. Gotta be careful careful not to confuse the inverse there.

The hypothesis states that, in a discussion like this, one that defends an anti-science view and claims credentials will likely have an engineering degree in an unrelated field. But it doesn't claim that all engineers will hold an anti-science view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hot; it's global warming

It's cold; it's climate change

It's hasn't warmed; it's data change

You guys are a hoot. Now if one of your kids kept feeding you bull**** like you try to feed us bull**** on this topic; you've never believe them...But since some UN bureaucrat and Al Gore is telling you this; you buy it hook like and sinker. PT Barnum was right; you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

If you talked to them like you do on this forum, you only thought you had them for breakfast. I suspect they walked away thinking that you were a complete jerk.

Or, when he left the room, they all broke down in belly laughter at him behind his back. :laugh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homo you are living proof that most scientists have an over inflated ego and opinion of their selves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homo you are living proof that most scientists have an over inflated ego and opinion of their selves

It wasn't me that was making the "argument from authority". :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject.

If you talked to them like you do on this forum, you only thought you had them for breakfast. I suspect they walked away thinking that you were a complete jerk.

Or, when he left the room, they all broke down in belly laughter at him behind his back. :laugh:

Possibly. But they followed my direction nevertheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hot; it's global warming

It's cold; it's climate change

It's hasn't warmed; it's data change

You guys are a hoot. Now if one of your kids kept feeding you bull**** like you try to feed us bull**** on this topic; you've never believe them...But since some UN bureaucrat and Al Gore is telling you this; you buy it hook like and sinker. PT Barnum was right; you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Ding! Al Gore!

I was starting to wonder what was taking so long. :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hot; it's global warming

It's cold; it's climate change

It's hasn't warmed; it's data change

You guys are a hoot. Now if one of your kids kept feeding you bull**** like you try to feed us bull**** on this topic; you've never believe them...But since some UN bureaucrat and Al Gore is telling you this; you buy it hook like and sinker. PT Barnum was right; you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Ding! Al Gore!

I was starting to wonder what was taking so long. :-\

Don't forget Bill Nye "the Science Guy." He's a global warming alarmist, too. Oh, wait ... Mech Eng degree from Cornell. Disregard him completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget Bill Nye "the Science Guy." He's a global warming alarmist, too. Oh, wait ... Mech Eng degree from Cornell. Disregard him completely.

I remember Bill Nye as the character ' Speed Walker! ' from the comedy skit show in Seattle, Almost Live. At least he was intentionally trying to be funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget Bill Nye "the Science Guy." He's a global warming alarmist, too. Oh, wait ... Mech Eng degree from Cornell. Disregard him completely.

Yeah. Gotta be careful careful not to confuse the inverse there.

The hypothesis states that, in a discussion like this, one that defends an anti-science view and claims credentials will likely have an engineering degree in an unrelated field. But it doesn't claim that all engineers will hold an anti-science view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Bill Nye as the character ' Speed Walker! ' from the comedy skit show in Seattle, Almost Live. At least he was intentionally trying to be funny.

My girls have been on a bent watching his stuff on Netflix lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Don't see it, at least not the personal attacks and questioning their knowledge within their respective field. It's a valid criticism. I'd react much the same way if a theoretical physicist claimed he was able to do your job. A civil engineer != climatologist. Period.

Even if think you saw it, why not you report it to Titan if it bothers you so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Bill Nye as the character ' Speed Walker! ' from the comedy skit show in Seattle, Almost Live. At least he was intentionally trying to be funny.

My girls have been on a bent watching his stuff on Netflix lately.

The Science Guy stuff ? I never saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Bill Nye as the character ' Speed Walker! ' from the comedy skit show in Seattle, Almost Live. At least he was intentionally trying to be funny.

My girls have been on a bent watching his stuff on Netflix lately.

The Science Guy stuff ? I never saw it.

Yep. They love it. Aside from the fact that it's obviously geared for kids, I enjoy watching it with them. Good early physical science education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget Bill Nye "the Science Guy." He's a global warming alarmist, too. Oh, wait ... Mech Eng degree from Cornell. Disregard him completely.

I remember Bill Nye as the character ' Speed Walker! ' from the comedy skit show in Seattle, Almost Live. At least he was intentionally trying to be funny.

"The Science Guy" was also a semi-regular skit on Almost Live, too -- that's where he got the moniker. He initially got hired by Boeing out of college and worked on hydraulic systems. Then he started dabbling in local stand-up clubs and hooked up with Almost Live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Don't see it, at least not the personal attacks and questioning their knowledge within their respective field. It's a valid criticism. I'd react much the same way if a theoretical physicist claimed he was able to do your job. A civil engineer != climatologist. Period.

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

...Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

...Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I read it like working with the models is his everyday job, in which he has solid knowledge The lack of science as it applies to global warming is his opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

...Believe what you want, but I cannot get on board with global warming. To hear it called "Science" is a slap to my profession.

But what would I know - this is only my everyday job.

I read it like working with the models is his everyday job, in which he has solid knowledge The lack of science as it applies to global warming is his opinion.

I think it is his solid knowledge of modeling that makes his informed opinion on global warming meaningful. Since no actual warming is being observed, AGW, the whole thing, hangs on "modeled" predictions of warming; which so far have all been wrong as well. So no observed warming, coupled with models that predict warming; incorrectly; in the real world means this is all BS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reports Of The Death Of The Global Warming Pause Are Greatly Exaggerated

Date: 04/06/15 Global Warming Policy Forum

The paper by Karl et al. (2015) published today in Science is an ‘express’ report and not up to the standards of a comprehensive paper. It is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.

Key pitfalls of the paper:

* The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.

* They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.

* Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.

* The extent of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers) is not justified by any evidence as to the magnitude of the appropriate adjustment, which appears to be far smaller.

- See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/reports-of-the-end-of-the-global-warming-pause-are-greatly-exaggerated/#sthash.CaqAZeu6.dpuf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Don't see it, at least not the personal attacks and questioning their knowledge within their respective field. It's a valid criticism. I'd react much the same way if a theoretical physicist claimed he was able to do your job. A civil engineer != climatologist. Period.

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

Not so.

He was talking about modeling in general. He projected his experience with (relatively) small scale modeling on "air dispersion" to the nature of current climatological models (which aren't even relevent to the topic of this thread, which is about history, not models).

In short, he set himself up as an expert, threw out a few red herrings, then proclaimed the consensus of current Climatological and related sciences is an "insult" to his (presumably engineering) profession. :-\

He is now reaping what he sowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

Don't see it, at least not the personal attacks and questioning their knowledge within their respective field. It's a valid criticism. I'd react much the same way if a theoretical physicist claimed he was able to do your job. A civil engineer != climatologist. Period.

You guys are swinging and missing. He wasn't claiming to know anything about climate. He claimed to work with the model types they were using. Unless you are outright calling the guy a liar, you need to go back and read his post again. #13 in this thread.

Not so.

He was talking about modeling in general. He projected his experience with (relatively) small scale modeling on "air dispersion" to the nature of current climatological models (which aren't even relevent to the topic of this thread, which is about history, not models).

In short, he set himself up as an expert, threw out a few red herrings, then proclaimed the consensus of current Climatological and related sciences are an "insult" to his (presumably engineering) profession. :-\/>

He is now reaping what he sowed.

Yeah.....that's not childish in the least. What little respect I had for you is gone (not that you'd give a damn). Same old tactics that you love to use. Instead of disagreeing (respectfully) you try to turn it into some BS competition. Sow that jackass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...