It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

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

page: 2
8
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:02 PM

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Grimpachi

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.

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?

I am sure if you look into it you could find the answer.

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:07 PM
"Models are testbeds for all sorts of questions, and PISM is what we call a numerical model.” said Aschwanden. “We take our best understanding of the physical processes of the real world, in this case ice sheets, and frame that in the language of mathematics. Then we teach the computer how to come up with solutions to ‘what if’ questions about the processes that this model represents. We did a lot of work under the hood to make this model work.

Emphasis mine.

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:08 PM

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Grimpachi

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.

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?

I am sure if you look into it you could find the answer.

Why? I already know it's wider that 1.24. If it was narrower they would have mentioned it in the article.

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:09 PM
Perhaps, after they recall all of those Diesel VW's, we can buy a few more years.
Seriously, I would hope that we wind up with a real plan soon, and start acting on it, however I think we would all succumb to the conditions that would prevail leading up to the disappearance of terrestrial ice.

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:14 PM

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Grimpachi

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.

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?

Well plus that only goes back to 1998, so someone like me who admittedly has done very little research on the subject can't tell if this is something to be concerned about.

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:17 PM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.

Consensus is a political term, not a scientific. Science questions. Science tests. When it fails, it is supposed to be adult enough to scrap the current line of reasoning and start over.

Incorrect scientists have been saying we will be seeing massive floods, famine, relocating refugees from the coasts world-wide for decades now.... as far back as the 70's. They point out the glaciers that are receding but ignore the glaciers that are growing. They point at mountaintops and omit that the snow is disappearing due to dry air, not because of the heat. They ignore that the southern hemisphere is colder than the northern. Their graphs pick starting points that ignore cold points the preceed the graph. They try to erase the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. They estimate data.

I have no respect for anyone that defers to scientific consensus. I have sat in meetings with PhDs who share the same degrees. They do not reach consensus. They argue their own pet theories and seek to find error in other's. It is a beautiful things to watch.
edit on 24-9-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:17 PM

What do you expect. WUWT reprinted the article and changed the headline for whatever reason.

If all the fossil fuels were burned at one time like in their hypothetical it may be possible to have those effects.

UAF model used to estimate Antarctic ice sheet melting

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:21 PM

originally posted by: Grimpachi

What do you expect. WUWT reprinted the article and changed the headline for whatever reason.

If all the fossil fuels were burned at one time like in their hypothetical it may be possible to have those effects.

UAF model used to estimate Antarctic ice sheet melting

That would be impressive to see, all at once. Such a pity that won't happen. So this is just fear mongering?

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:22 PM

originally posted by: Helious

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.

Here is some scientific evidence for you.
It is still not the millions of years of data required to correlate to certainty, however if you check the direction of the last line, it looks like an asymptotic relationship, and nature always deals with extremes in drastic ways.

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:28 PM

Incorrect scientists have been saying we will be seeing massive floods, famine, relocating refugees from the coasts world-wide for decades now.... as far back as the 70's.

I take it you don't know about the places that are flooding now from tidal flows. OK

They point out the glaciers that are receding but ignore the glaciers that are growing.

What glaciers might those be. FYI sea ice isn't a glacier you probably already know that.

They point at mountaintops and omit that the snow is disappearing due to dry are, not because of the heat.

Weird because I knew that and it was because it wasn't omitted.

They ignore that the southern hemisphere is colder than the northern.

Really??? They ignore that. I think you may be wrong on that.

Their graphs pick starting points that ignore cold points the preceed the graph.

Source?

They try to erase the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age.

That's another weird one. How are they erasing it? Who is they and why are they failing to accomplish their goal.

They estimate data

Yeah that happens, but do you know why and when it happens for which instances?

I have no respect for anyone that defers to scientific consensus. I have sat in meetings with PhDs who share the same degrees. They do not reach consensus. They argue their own pet theories and seek to find error in other's. It is a beautiful things to watch.

That is a cool anecdotal story.

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 11:32 PM

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Grimpachi

What do you expect. WUWT reprinted the article and changed the headline for whatever reason.

If all the fossil fuels were burned at one time like in their hypothetical it may be possible to have those effects.

UAF model used to estimate Antarctic ice sheet melting

That would be impressive to see, all at once. Such a pity that won't happen. So this is just fear mongering?

More like rebranding to inflame and mislead. There are a lot of people who don't read much further than the headlines of articles and have problems comprehending the information within, but will have knee jerk reactions to what they dd comprehend.

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 12:52 AM
Yeah , GiGo - Garbage in , Garbage out......my computer mode;l shows I will win the state lottery next Wednesday.

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 05:32 AM

Here is some scientific evidence for you.

Nice graph. Cherry picking data yet again. Why not get the real one!

Now, argue with that graph. CO2 emissions have always followed increasing temps and this makes a lot of sense. The warmer it gets, the more plants can grow, more plants = more animals = more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Understand this, we have way insufficient complex data to understand anything. Our records for temperature can only go back to the invention of the thermometer and the early ones were not all that accurate.

The climate debate is about two things.

Ripping money from mums and dads to go into the pockets of the elite.

Too hide the real truth and that graph should send a big chill down everyone's spine. We are due for another ice age, like it or not it is coming and there is nothing we can do about it.

This 10,000 year period we are near the end of has been one of the best on record. Mankind has flourished.

So, how long have we got ... well ... there is insufficient data to work that one out!

It could be a thousand years from now, it could be within the current generation's life time.

P

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:34 AM
NOOOOOOO! WHAT WILL I PUT IN MY DRINKS?!?
Completely serious though, we are destroying this planet. I always tell people who deny that humans can affect climate to park their car in their garage and leave it running to see how this theory plays out. (Nobody takes me up on it, but if you are considering it, please don't!)

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:54 AM

Google "global cooling in the 70s" and research. Much more than just a "few" papers. I lived it and recall all the hype quite clearly.

You know what's heating the Earth? The sun.

That and all the secrecy going on under our feet.

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 11:57 AM

originally posted by: NewzNose

Google "global cooling in the 70s" and research. Much more than just a "few" papers. I lived it and recall all the hype quite clearly.

The fact is there were 7 peer reviewed papers in total on cooling back then and that's it. There were many times more on warming during the same period.

Look it up if you don't believe me I have many times.

You know what's heating the Earth? The sun.

If that wasn't known then redactive forcing wouldn't be an issue.

That and all the secrecy going on under our feet.

Do tell.

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 06:13 PM

Because peer reviews are spot on gospel intel, right?

Look again...yes, be thorough.

Nothing is what it seems. The sun itself has a different intensity for a reason.

Fox Mulder was right afterall.

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:25 PM

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Grimpachi

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.

With respect to models, the onus is on the claimant to prove they work.

Science, real science, is not like the drivel "taught" in "social studies"

Good luck with that
www.drroyspencer.com...

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:32 PM

what you show are the `adjusted` temperature record, not raw

RSS data is quite clear, flat record.

In any real scientific endeavor, `adjusting` data is called, correctly, scientific FRAUD.
I don`t expect you to understand, but here goes:
www.drroyspencer.com...
figure 6 in particular
Good luck
edit on 25-9-2015 by M5xaz because: typo

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:16 PM

originally posted by: pheonix358

Here is some scientific evidence for you.

Nice graph. Cherry picking data yet again. Why not get the real one!

Now, argue with that graph. CO2 emissions have always followed increasing temps and this makes a lot of sense. The warmer it gets, the more plants can grow, more plants = more animals = more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Understand this, we have way insufficient complex data to understand anything. Our records for temperature can only go back to the invention of the thermometer and the early ones were not all that accurate.

The climate debate is about two things.

Ripping money from mums and dads to go into the pockets of the elite.

Too hide the real truth and that graph should send a big chill down everyone's spine. We are due for another ice age, like it or not it is coming and there is nothing we can do about it.

This 10,000 year period we are near the end of has been one of the best on record. Mankind has flourished.

So, how long have we got ... well ... there is insufficient data to work that one out!

It could be a thousand years from now, it could be within the current generation's life time.

P

The graph I used obviously shows very recent history. It is the correlation of the period of the industrial revolution and increase in auto emissions which coincides with this spike of CO2. That is the troubling part.

new topics

8