It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Grimpachi

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.


I see you are having a very difficult time comprehending this.

The stories you remember from the 70s about global cooling were ALL based off of those 7 peer reviewed articles.

There were probably hundreds of journalistic articles written about them, but those are not what matters when we are talking about scientific papers of that era.

The media does not make science they report the science.


Hopefuly you now understand the difference between actual scientific articles (peer reviewed) and tabloid articles which it seems you have been talking about.

Yes, as I said the media picked up on the global cooling back in the 70s and it showed up in the tabloids a lot, but they were ALL based off of those 7 peer reviewed articles. There were many times more peer reviewed articles about AGW during that same period.




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Grimpachi

Raw unadjusted data is flat.

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

RSS data is quite clear, flat record.


So I see you didn't notice that many temps after adjustment were brought DOWN.




In any real scientific endeavor, `adjusting` data is called, correctly, scientific FRAUD
.

So you have never heard of calibration.




I don`t expect you to understand, but here goes:


Why, is it because you didn't?

There is more to it than just your paper on satellite data.

Such as ground based stations, If they are located near a lot of concrete you would adjust those for the heat bubble effect.

There is time of day that measurements are taken. Obviously the best results would come from measurements taken at the same time every day, but if they weren't for whatever reasons such as satellite drift you would have to adjust.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Adjustments are necessary for science. Just maybe you have a little better understanding of it now.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358

Now, argue with that graph. CO2 emissions have always followed increasing temps and this makes a lot of sense.


Except this time, now. CO2 went up first, and then warming. What's up with that?

Oh yes, humans are emitting gigatons of previously fossilized carbon that never participated in any of the geological ice age cycles you showed in the graph. It's different this time because the facts are different.

The above is a perfect example of a phenomenon where a not quite idiotic layman picks up on a factoid and then asserts that his exceptionally simplistic explanation (which meets his predetermined emotional narrative) is better than that from tens of thousands of professional scientists who collectively have worked decades on the problem and understand immensely more. You see this over and over and over, some grump says "oh it's the SUN stupid" and then becomes self satisfied that the scientists are wrong. Or there's an urban heat island effect, or this or that which the professionals have known about for many decades and have already investigated in tremendous detail (and the pros have corrected for all sorts of phenomena the laymen know nothing about; like slight changes in instrumentation manufacturing for weather balloons, satellite orbit effects, etc etc etc. Scientists keep samples of air in sealed containers taken decades ago so that they can re-measure historical gas concentrations using the same modern calibrated instruments, and then they study the tiny emissions that the gaskets in the sealing valve might do to the results, etc etc etc)


The warmer it gets, the more plants can grow, more plants = more animals = more CO2 in the atmosphere.


And your "Makes a lot of sense" actually doesn't. It's the other way around---when more plants grow, they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The real story is much more complicated involving interactions between climate, rocks and oceans, and yes, CO2 in the atmosphere adds to warming because physics makes it so. It can also be that warming also results in the release of CO2 from rocks and oceans over geological time, thereby contributing to the cycle.

The interpretation of this means is that the warming that humans have caused might result in additional natural CO2 emission making the problem even worse! At present, the natural world is removing a major fraction of the human CO2 emissions. This is observational fact. Without this process we might be at 600 ppm by now.

If natural phenomena (which may be present judging by geological evidence) result in this removal stopping or even turning around, hell will break loose.

edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Yes, as I said the media picked up on the global cooling back in the 70s and it showed up in the tabloids a lot, but they were ALL based off of those 7 peer reviewed articles. There were many times more peer reviewed articles about AGW during that same period.


journals.ametsoc.org...



The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Thomas C. Peterson

NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
William M. Connolley

British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom
John Fleck

Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico



Abstract

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.


What was happening with concern about global cooling?

a) Discovery of Milankovitch cycles. And yes, we are now in a cooling phase, with the warming from astronomical alignment having peaked in 6000 BC or so.

b) Pollution, aerosols, were causing cooling in the better instrumented Northern Hemisphere which was industrializing and dirty. Cleanup of this pollution (which had clear health harm!) resulted in the temporary cooling stopping.

The fact that scientists were considering both sides of the issue in 1970's shows that contrary to the denialist's libels, scientists are willing to consider all aspects and explanations and futures. They are convinced by scientific results, theory and experimental data.

They knew back then that there was warming from greenhouse emissions and were concerned as well; but the degree and future was not sufficiently known to be sure which effects would predominate. More research was needed. It has been done, and the results are in. (In fact the big picture was settled for sure by the early 1990's).

Science does learn things: heat is not carried by phlostigon. Light does not have mass. And global warming from human activities is real and will result in major undesirable climate change and disruption.
edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: VoidHawk
Yeah , GiGo - Garbage in , Garbage out......my computer mode;l shows I will win the state lottery next Wednesday.




That's why scientists don't use your computer models, but ones which are built out of known physics and re-tested and examined in great detail and probed with all sorts of hypothetical and experimental tests.

As in all fields of science: there are "computer models" in all of condensed matter physics, atomic physics, geology, biology, astrophysics, particle physics. It so happens that scientists don't turn off their brains when it comes to climate because the results are emotionally uncomfortable.
edit on 26-9-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

It is apparent you have no science background, are unable to recognize fraud, or both.

stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Climate-fear-mongering is not science, never has been



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

It is apparent that you find it hard to communicate without making assumptions about other people or being just plain insulting.

Nice link to a blog from a guy with a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering, at least that is what he claims but no one really knows who he is. Did you happen to donate to that denialist site?
edit on 26-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I can program a spreadsheet so it sings "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Does that mean it will cause the second coming of Jesus, the Lamb of God?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel



It so happens that scientists don't turn off their brains when it comes to climate because the results are emotionally uncomfortable.

They do for money and glory , though




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel




The above is a perfect example of a phenomenon where a not quite idiotic layman picks up on a factoid and then asserts that his exceptionally simplistic explanation


Can you reply to anything without being an insulting little man. I am more than willing to debate this and provided you with a decent graph so that you could fire that point back.

But seriously man, I have no intention of debating this with you if you are going to continue to be an insulting little cretin.

Now, be a man and apologies. Then we can continue.

You have no idea who I am or what I have studied.

You are making assumptions that say, any one that disagrees with me is an idiot. Hmm, prove it!

P



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join