New computer model says human emissions can ‘render Earth ice free’

Hot off the presses is a new study that says if we burned all the fossil fuels, it would melt Antarctica !!

This of course would force millions of people to flee big cities that are near big waterways.

I guess computers are great for outputting whatever somebody wants when programmed correctly.


New computer model says human emissions can ‘render Earth ice free’

From the “department of global roasting” and the UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, where great ideas like this one are formed at Halloween parties, (yes really, see PR) comes this claim:

UAF model used to estimate Antarctic ice sheet melting

To see how burning up the Earth’s available fossil fuels might affect the Antarctic ice sheet, scientists turned to a computer program developed at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute. The ice would disappear, they found, and that conclusion is making headlines across the world.

UAF’s Parallel Ice Sheet Model “was the perfect tool to find out whether human emissions are sufficient to render Earth ice free — and unfortunately it turns out that they are,” said Anders Levermann, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Levermann is an author of a paper recently published in the journal Science Advances.

a reply to: xuenchen

Computer models depend on being fed data, he who feeds in that data controls what data will be spewed out!

Remember the Hockey stick of Al Gore's? it didn't matter what data was fed in coz it always spat out a hockey stick! Just a shame ol gore wasn't made to sit on one.

I once made a computer program say 'Hello World!'

Does that mean aliens are coming?

a reply to: xuenchen

The article is from WUWT so I will say it is hyperbole or a strawman setup.


In other words, you should dismiss articles from them because any factual information they may contain will have been twisted.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: xuenchen

The article is from WUWT so I will say it is hyperbole or a strawman setup.


In other words, you should dismiss articles from them because any factual information they may contain will have been twisted.

Despite the fact that all "climate models" have failed.
All of them.
Brilliant deduction there, Sherlock

a reply to: M5xaz

Despite the fact that all "climate models" have failed.
All of them.

Hey Holmes, you are wrong. Not that you care about facts.

a reply to: xuenchen

In the 70's it was global COOLING. Everyone in a tither.

What a difference the 3 decades make, huh?

Were we wrong to tackle pollution?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: xuenchen

In the 70's it was global COOLING. Everyone in a tither.

What a difference the 3 decades make, huh?

Were we wrong to tackle pollution?

Actually in the 70s the majority of climatologists were warning about global warming, but there were a few papers written warning about cooling. The media ran with the cooling papers because they sold. At least one of the people that were warning about cooling is still at it today.

Back in 70s Exxon did some studies on co2 and knew it would cause warming, but they hushed everything up and fired those involved.

Despite its efforts for nearly two decades to raise doubts about the science of climate change, newly discovered company documents show that as early as 1977, Exxon research scientists warned company executives that carbon dioxide was increasing in the atmosphere and that the burning of fossil fuels was to blame.

The internal records are detailed in a new investigation published Wednesday by InsideClimate News, a Pulitzer Prize-winning news organization covering energy and the environment.

The investigation found that long before global warming emerged as an issue on the national agenda, Exxon formed an internal brain trust that spent more than a decade trying to understand the impact of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere — even launching a supertanker with custom-made instruments to sample and understand whether the oceans could absorb the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Today, Exxon says the study had nothing to do with CO2 emissions, but an Exxon researcher involved in the project remembered it differently in the below video, which was produced by FRONTLINE in association with the InsideClimate News report.

www.pbs.org...

ed it on 26/9/15 by masqua because: Fixed BBCode

"human" emissions? So, what now? No more mexican food?

Yeah, totally believe it. Let me know when we are in the ice age, I'll have money to prepare because I won't be paying carbon taxes.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: M5xaz

Despite the fact that all "climate models" have failed.
All of them.

Hey Holmes, you are wrong. Not that you care about facts.

No climate models predicted the current 18 year and counting pause
No climate model is able to predict when it will end.
Failure, utter failure.

Those ARE the facts
You have NONE

a reply to: M5xaz

Like I said "you don't care about facts".

FYI you can't be in a pause and also consistently have the hottest years on record at the same time.



Read about it or don't. Your claim doesn't change the facts.

10-warmest-years-globally

Like I said "you don't care about facts".

FYI you can't be in a pause and also consistently have the hottest years on record at the same time.

lol, and science can explain why that is right......? Right........? Oh yeah, they can't and have no credible explanation. So then, I guess the Earth has always held a steady temperature right, I mean has there been variation to a moderate or major degree in Earths past? Has that variation taken place when humans were either not present or not a contributing factor?

Oh, ok then. The answer is extra taxing! Sit down bro, it's a losing argument.

DP

a reply to: Grimpachi
I think you nailed it, especially given the OP's posting record.

It seems like there had been an upswing far right's battle against climate science lately.

a reply to: Helious

lol, and science can explain why that is right......?

yes

Oh yeah, they can't and have no credible explanation.

What?

I mean has there been variation to a moderate or major degree in Earths past?

Of course.

Has that variation taken place when humans were either not present or not a contributing factor?

Of course.

Oh, ok then. The answer is extra taxing! Sit down bro, it's a losing argument.

You lost me there.

Did you have a point you forgot to get to?

a reply to: Grimpachi

You are wrong on every point. There is no scientific evidence that shows that humans are effecting climate change. None. In simple point of fact, the Earth experiences climate changes from moderate to drastic and science is still at a loss to explain those, before mankind, during and certainly now.

Don't be disingenuous in your arguments because we both know as does anyone informed that reads our posts that what I am saying is the truth. If you care to refute this, which I already know you can't, post me some links so I can quickly discredit them.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: M5xaz

Despite the fact that all "climate models" have failed.
All of them.

Hey Holmes, you are wrong. Not that you care about facts.

No climate models predicted the current 18 year and counting pause
No climate model is able to predict when it will end.
Failure, utter failure.

Those ARE the facts
You have NONE

Facts have sources. You don't.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: M5xaz

Like I said "you don't care about facts".

FYI you can't be in a pause and also consistently have the hottest years on record at the same time.

Read about it or don't. Your claim doesn't change the facts.

10-warmest-years-globally

"The global temperature was 1.24°F above the long-term average, besting the previous record holders by 0.07°F. "

I love it when they post numbers around an average but never tell us what the margin of error and/or deviation are. Especially when they are so low. 0.07, seriously?

a reply to: Helious

You call me disingenuous and claim I was wrong on everything.

I don't know if you are playing at poe or actually believe what you are saying, but what I have said is in line with the scientific consensus so if you plan on debunking scientific consensus you have a long road ahead of you and I wish you luck.


Let me ask you this though, do you believe co2 is a greenhouse gas? Is there more or less co2 in the environment since the industrial evolution?