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.

 

Climate change not as threatening to planet - Scientists got their modelling wrong

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Yep you read that right !





Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.


Even more unbelievable;



Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.


That's 66.666%.



The Source




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

I hope everyone reads the whole article.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.
...
Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.
...
the slowdown in rising air temperatures between 1999 and 2014 happened as a result of a natural cycle in the Pacific, which led to the ocean circulation speeding up, causing it to pull heat down in the deeper ocean away from the atmosphere.

However, that cycle has now ended.

This article is not calling CO2 caused climate change a hoax, it is saying that we can clean energy growth our way ahead economically.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Wait.
You mean that if the Paris accord works, it will work?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Wait.
You mean that if the Paris accord works, it will work?

That's what the article says. The goal set by Paris isn't changed.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Well, color me gobsmacked and knock me over with a feather.

Meanwhile, the August analysis is out.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

edit on 9/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

I thought polar ice is melting at an "alarming" rate. The Antarctic ice shelf is receding/breaking. Sea levels are rising. Polar bear populations are suffering...etc. All because the Earth is heating up so dramatically.

You're saying that all of those assessments are FAKE news?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




You're saying that all of those assessments are FAKE news?

Yeah. Pretty much so.
Arctic sea ice has been on the decline for a while now. Greenland glaciers the same.
Antarctic ice mass, well, that's a bit tougher to determine but the trend would seem to be downward.

Meanwhile:


But, just out of curiosity, are you saying that the planet is not warming? Or are you saying "don't worry, it's natural?" Just to be clear.

edit on 9/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Please don't read the Daily Telegraph. I'd like to apologise to the world for the dreadful rag, which has fallen off a cliff these past ten years. It has regular and ridiculous columns why Christopher Booker, a man who is dementedly anti-science, and recently had a major column in it by Boris bloody Johnson that has backfired wonderfully on the horrible little rodent.
The Torygraph has a certain amount of bias when it comes to global climate change, thanks to its equally demented owner, the reclusive Barclay Brothers.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But hey, he did bring an interesting study to the public.
Too bad he distorted it so badly.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Here's the complete abstract of the study cited:

The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible
Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C

Looks like the study calls for more short term reductions. Waiting until later could be unfeasible.

The actual study does not sound as optimistic as the newspaper story.
edit on 19-9-2017 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



Please don't read the Daily Telegraph


Ok then;



the analysis focuses in part on the fact that global climate models used in the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to overestimate the extent of warming that has already occurred. After adjusting for that discrepancy and running further models, the authors of the latest study found that the amount of carbon that humanity can emit from 2015 onward while holding temperatures below 1.5 °C is nearly three times greater than estimated by the IPCC — or even larger if there is aggressive action on greenhouse gases beyond carbon dioxide.


Nature



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

It says do something now, or do a whole lot more in a few years.

Papers like this should be open access. I wonder if it provides projections for what happens if the goals are not met by 2030. Oh wait. It does.

edit on 9/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell



Ok then;


Ok then, the title of that article

Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C may still be possible

edit on 9/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   
We need to find an alternative to plastics....

Example:

Water can travel through mountains and springs for thousands of years, and we can drink it..... as soon as we put it in one of those fugly plaso bottles it has a used by date.

I hate plastic.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

We need to find alternatives to burning stuff.
You have to admit, that's pretty primitive.


edit on 9/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I concur, very primitive. But do we REALLY need all this crap..... hmm, can't make a laptop from stone.


And burying it.

I'll leave it to you to make a de-construction atomiser thingy to restore all elements back to its pure form.

I'll wait here

edit on 19/9/2017 by scubagravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

It was buried.
We're just digging it up. Then burning it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I edited and added bolding.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scubagravy

We need to find alternatives to burning stuff.







We have its called a vaporizer...

edit on 19-9-2017 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   
what utter crap.

First the overall conclusion was...even if all countries participated in the Paris accord...the impact will be negligible on the warming trend. It was one of their weakest links in the whole circus.

Ultimately...that little factoid hurt the AGW cause.

Now, they figured it out...now state that the impact might be worth it. If we can all just get along...and jump the Climate train.

But I like this bit...


because scientists got their modelling wrong


No...that....is...unbelievable. Cant be wrong. But anyway...I'm certain that now they are right. The fault has certainly been corrected. Trust us now. It's ok.




top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join