Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[Mikey 16,579]

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.

Nonsense.

[AUDub 11,147]

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.

Nonsense.

I'm afraid that is not the case.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

In other news, it was 92 degrees in "The Ham" today. (Yes that was a Gose or multiples)

[AUDub 11,147]

In other news, it was 90 degrees in "The Ham" today. :beer2:/>

It was hot. It sucked. Even the short drive home from mass was miserable, seeing as I haven't bothered to fix the AC in my car.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

In other news, it was 90 degrees in "The Ham" today. :beer2:/>

It was hot. It sucked. Even the short drive home from mass was miserable, seeing as I haven't bothered to fix the AC in my car.

You missed my edit.

[AUDub 11,147]

In other news, it was 90 degrees in "The Ham" today.

It was hot. It sucked. Even the short drive home from mass was miserable, seeing as I haven't bothered to fix the AC in my car.

You missed my edit.

I did.

My dad and I slammed the Gose yesterday after we got done cleaning gutters and cutting down trees.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

In other news, it was 90 degrees in "The Ham" today.

It was hot. It sucked. Even the short drive home from mass was miserable, seeing as I haven't bothered to fix the AC in my car.

You missed my edit.

I did.

My dad and I slammed the Gose yesterday after we got done cleaning gutters and cutting down trees.

Like drinking water, only better.

[homersapien 11,367]

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.

Apparently, I am not "politically correct" enough to suit you.

Or maybe you would prefer soft ball?

[AUcivE09 582]

You guys crack me up. I bring a bit of real knowledge into this thing and you just try to disregard it because it doesn't follow what you want to believe. No, I am not a climatologist - I am an environmental engineer with a concentration in air pollution control. This is a hot topic of every lecture and conference I have attended. I am an expert. Climatology is not difficult to understand. Honestly, I could slide right into a climatologist's position and probably improve their studies and research. I have a pretty good idea what is going on with the data used in EVERY climate doom scenario. It would be nice if everyone had even a basic knowledge on this subject.

I also appreciate the defense of others, but don't waste your time. I put this information out here for people to read who are curious about the subject and want to educate themselves. None of the facts I stated are false though I invite you to debate my conclusion. Those who already have their mind made up and can only resort to bashing the engineering profession as an argument are a prime example of what is wrong with politics and people in this country.

In case you missed it - Ill repost:

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.

[AUcivE09 582]

Also, science is something proven. Let me explain what calling global warming "science" sounds like to me. Remember when Bush put up the banner that read "Mission Accomplished"? You libs with the blinders on should understand that comparison.

[autigeremt 6,602]

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.

Apparently, I am not "politically correct" enough to suit you.

Or maybe you would prefer soft ball?

This has nothing to do with PC. This is homer doing what homer does when homer doesn't like the information provided. You decided to slam the guy by going after his area of expertise. That's not PC....that's demeaning and irresponsible.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

If I was to be classified it would be as a Political Conservative but like most Americans on individual issues I don't always match what would be expected from basic views. Global Warming is one. I do believe Global warming is occurring and I do believe that man is responsible for some of it. I am on the fence as to whether some of the warming is normal cyclic changes as while our science has progressed climate change is a very complex issue and our Models don't always take in enough variables so while I believe they are correct in the general direction I don't necessarily agree with the speed that they project.

The reason I have my doubts in reading papers from both sides I have seen a bias where one side won't address legitimate criticism of the other side. The people on the no Global Warming side have mentioned multiple times that some of the land based stations are no longer valid to use in comparison as they are no longer like to like. Initially these stations were in rural areas no buildings and no concrete around them as population has grown some on now in Suburbs or outskirts of the city where local variables skew the results. Some type of weight needs to be used when comparing temp readings for sites that are in basically the same environmental location versus where the environmental location has changed.

The ones who don't believe there is any Global warming will focus on one thing like over last few years the change didn't match what was predicted so the whole model must be wrong.

Finally I am sad to say maybe because of ego or because they want to re-enforce their views there have been people on both sides who have skewed the results to fit their views. When caught this gives the other side ammunition in the fight for their viewpoint. Ideally Science should be sacrosanct but sadly science is done by people who are not perfect and sometimes have agendas.

There is enough evidence that there has been change in the temperature of the ocean and that we have higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere that there has to be some correlation but how much and how bad of an issue it is and if the Planet itself can find a way to balance it has still not been determined.

[Weegle777 78]

Ahh yes, the libs whined and whined about AUUSN getting "attacked" about his profession, but now they are doing that which they cried about to someone that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is strong on this board. Where are the admins?

[AUDub 11,147]

Ahh yes, the libs whined and whined about AUUSN getting "attacked" about his profession, but now they are doing that which they cried about to someone that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is strong on this board. Where are the admins?

I'm sure he's very good at his job, but I'd react much the same way if a biologist claimed to be an expert in neurosurgery.

[autigeremt 6,602]

If I was to be classified it would be as a Political Conservative but like most Americans on individual issues I don't always match what would be expected from basic views. Global Warming is one. I do believe Global warming is occurring and I do believe that man is responsible for some of it. I am on the fence as to whether some of the warming is normal cyclic changes as while our science has progressed climate change is a very complex issue and our Models don't always take in enough variables so while I believe they are correct in the general direction I don't necessarily agree with the speed that they project.

The reason I have my doubts in reading papers from both sides I have seen a bias where one side won't address legitimate criticism of the other side. The people on the no Global Warming side have mentioned multiple times that some of the land based stations are no longer valid to use in comparison as they are no longer like to like. Initially these stations were in rural areas no buildings and no concrete around them as population has grown some on now in Suburbs or outskirts of the city where local variables skew the results. Some type of weight needs to be used when comparing temp readings for sites that are in basically the same environmental location versus where the environmental location has changed.

The ones who don't believe there is any Global warming will focus on one thing like over last few years the change didn't match what was predicted so the whole model must be wrong.

Finally I am sad to say maybe because of ego or because they want to re-enforce their views there have been people on both sides who have skewed the results to fit their views. When caught this gives the other side ammunition in the fight for their viewpoint. Ideally Science should be sacrosanct but sadly science is done by people who are not perfect and sometimes have agendas.

There is enough evidence that there has been change in the temperature of the ocean and that we have higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere that there has to be some correlation but how much and how bad of an issue it is and if the Planet itself can find a way to balance it has still not been determined.

Well stated.

[autigeremt 6,602]

Ahh yes, the libs whined and whined about AUUSN getting "attacked" about his profession, but now they are doing that which they cried about to someone that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is strong on this board. Where are the admins?

I'm sure he's very good at his job, but I'd react much the same way if a biologist claimed to be an expert in neurosurgery.

At least in this case the "biologist" is talking about some of the biochemistry that can assist in the diagnosis being sought out to aid the neurosurgeon in the work he/she is doing.

[AUDub 11,147]

Ahh yes, the libs whined and whined about AUUSN getting "attacked" about his profession, but now they are doing that which they cried about to someone that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is strong on this board. Where are the admins?

I'm sure he's very good at his job, but I'd react much the same way if a biologist claimed to be an expert in neurosurgery.

At least in this case the "biologist" is talking about some of the biochemistry that can assist in the diagnosis being sought out to aid the neurosurgeon in the work he/she is doing.

But biologists, like engineers, are generally very knowledgable in their respective field. There will be some overlap between physicians and biologists, but they aren't interchangeable. There's a broad divergence concerning skills and knowledge needed to do their jobs.

I'm sure AUCivEng is very good at his job and quite knowledgable, but within a narrow area regarding climatology as a whole.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Ahh yes, the libs whined and whined about AUUSN getting "attacked" about his profession, but now they are doing that which they cried about to someone that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is strong on this board. Where are the admins?

You do not see any difference? "Attacking" the specific expertise of a person based on credentials versus attacking someone's service to the country merely based on their politics? You and EMT are being grossly disingenuous.

[WarTim 3,456]

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.

Thanks for sharing!!!

[AUcivE09 582]

Ahh yes, the libs whined and whined about AUUSN getting "attacked" about his profession, but now they are doing that which they cried about to someone that they don't agree with. The hypocrisy is strong on this board. Where are the admins?

I'm sure he's very good at his job, but I'd react much the same way if a biologist claimed to be an expert in neurosurgery.

At least in this case the "biologist" is talking about some of the biochemistry that can assist in the diagnosis being sought out to aid the neurosurgeon in the work he/she is doing.

But biologists, like engineers, are generally very knowledgable in their respective field. There will be some overlap between physicians and biologists, but they aren't interchangeable. There's a broad divergence concerning skills and knowledge needed to do their jobs.

I'm sure AUCivEng is very good at his job and quite knowledgable, but it within a narrow area regarding climatology as a whole.

I am happy that you are so well educated in this field that you are able to state my expertise in the field. My knowledge regarding climatology is far greater than "narrow" - thank you. Climatology is not a high level advanced course that no one understands. I can do a climatologists job. They probably could not do mine. The air dispersion models I work with are far advanced from what goes in to climate models.

Go educate yourself and debate me on my points --> www.google.com

I would advise avoiding facebook for your data.

[AUcivE09 582]

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.

Thanks for sharing!!!

No problem. This is the one topic I can actually be useful.

[cooltigger21 0]

AGW is a cult. It's believers act just like cult followers do.

[AUcivE09 582]

If I was to be classified it would be as a Political Conservative but like most Americans on individual issues I don't always match what would be expected from basic views. Global Warming is one. I do believe Global warming is occurring and I do believe that man is responsible for some of it. I am on the fence as to whether some of the warming is normal cyclic changes as while our science has progressed climate change is a very complex issue and our Models don't always take in enough variables so while I believe they are correct in the general direction I don't necessarily agree with the speed that they project.

The reason I have my doubts in reading papers from both sides I have seen a bias where one side won't address legitimate criticism of the other side. The people on the no Global Warming side have mentioned multiple times that some of the land based stations are no longer valid to use in comparison as they are no longer like to like. Initially these stations were in rural areas no buildings and no concrete around them as population has grown some on now in Suburbs or outskirts of the city where local variables skew the results. Some type of weight needs to be used when comparing temp readings for sites that are in basically the same environmental location versus where the environmental location has changed.

The ones who don't believe there is any Global warming will focus on one thing like over last few years the change didn't match what was predicted so the whole model must be wrong.

Finally I am sad to say maybe because of ego or because they want to re-enforce their views there have been people on both sides who have skewed the results to fit their views. When caught this gives the other side ammunition in the fight for their viewpoint. Ideally Science should be sacrosanct but sadly science is done by people who are not perfect and sometimes have agendas.

There is enough evidence that there has been change in the temperature of the ocean and that we have higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere that there has to be some correlation but how much and how bad of an issue it is and if the Planet itself can find a way to balance it has still not been determined.

Well stated.

I can completely respect this. I also feel the same way in regards to how each side finds their ammo. Both sides are going at it the wrong way no matter who is right or wrong. I can say that if a few years of modeling data is wrong then the whole thing is wrong - it is just one of 2 problems. Is it the model or the data. I would simply argue the model based on what I know of how models work and how the data is gathered and used.

If you want my political perspective - I would be a fiscal conservative. Homer really liked me when I first started posting on here and we were on the same side of OTC PlanB and birth control debating Titan Tiger. Then I posted in another thread where I was on the opposite side with Titan. Suddenly, I was just dumb engineer. Its tough when you dont see politics as AUvsUA.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

AGW is a cult. It's believers act just like cult followers do.

Would you classify "deniers" in the same way?

I believe you have two "cults", the alarmists and the deniers. Many, I believe, are more political than realistic or scientific.

Perhaps cause for concern is more in line with reality than either "its a hoax" or, "the sky is falling"?

[homersapien 11,367]

You guys crack me up. I bring a bit of real knowledge into this thing and you just try to disregard it because it doesn't follow what you want to believe. No, I am not a climatologist - I am an environmental engineer with a concentration in air pollution control. This is a hot topic of every lecture and conference I have attended. I am an expert. Climatology is not difficult to understand. Honestly, I could slide right into a climatologist's position and probably improve their studies and research. I have a pretty good idea what is going on with the data used in EVERY climate doom scenario. It would be nice if everyone had even a basic knowledge on this subject.

I also appreciate the defense of others, but don't waste your time. I put this information out here for people to read who are curious about the subject and want to educate themselves. None of the facts I stated are false though I invite you to debate my conclusion. Those who already have their mind made up and can only resort to bashing the engineering profession as an argument are a prime example of what is wrong with politics and people in this country.

In case you missed it - Ill repost:

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.

That statement alone reveals you to be an example of the typical, narrow perspective, extrapolating, ignorant and arrogant sort of engineer I was referring to as having for breakfast. (And I bet you are very young.)

But in case you missed it, here is my expanded response:

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 the 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.