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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Phage
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.


What the hell was going on between 1940 and 1980 to cause such up down results compared to the solid trends one way of the other on either ends of that chart? Sticks out like a sore thumb.


You may findicate this is the time when nukes were being detonated everywhere to test their effects. The ionosphere testing was probably the most detrimental. I have often wondered how much "climate change" came from that alone. It's disrupted the magnetosphere for some time.




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Phage
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.


What the hell was going on between 1940 and 1980 to cause such up down results compared to the solid trends one way of the other on either ends of that chart? Sticks out like a sore thumb.


You may findicate this is the time when nukes were being detonated everywhere to test their effects. The ionosphere testing was probably the most detrimental. I have often wondered how much "climate change" came from that alone. It's disrupted the magnetosphere for some time.


That's an interesting hypothesis, you might be on to something with that.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

We probably agree with what is going on with cronyism. Just look at the Rockefeller lwgacy alone.


I think loans or research grants for nonprofit research groups (like cern, Fermi labs, etc) is probably a better approach then giving private industry free money.

I think like nearly everything they try and fix from Healthcare to immigration, if corporate lobby power is not reduced the solutions are not very possible or at least very difficult.

I personally feel the artifacts themselves can change the world. The problem is the campaigns and hypnotic subversion of the old guard controlling industries.

For instance is asthetic the only reason monolithic domes aren't pushed by their engineering aspects in areas with high probability of natural disaster or is it the building industry fearing the lack of material, labor time etc would limit their profits?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Not to mention CFC use during that period.
Chlorofluorocarbons such as Freon and Halon deplete ozone. Aerosol deodorants and others began phasing out in the late 70s in the U.S.

But the Rowland-Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and halocarbon industries. The chair of the board of DuPont was quoted as saying that ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense". Robert Abplanalp, the president of Precision Valve Corporation (and inventor of the first practical aerosol spray can valve), wrote to the Chancellor of UC Irvine to complain about Rowland's public statements (Roan, p. 56.)

After publishing their pivotal paper in June 1974, Rowland and Molina testified at a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives in December 1974. As a result, significant funding was made available to study various aspects of the problem and to confirm the initial findings. In 1976, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report that confirmed the scientific credibility of the ozone depletion hypothesis.
Montreal Protocol

That sounds strangely familiar. Producing industry pooh poohing the harmful results of the use of their products as fiction.

Hydrofluorocarbons, which are the non-ozone depleting replacement, are still greenhouse gases.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I also read a hypothesis a few (or many) years ago that the ozone layer acts as earth's thermostat, letting trapped heat out when the earth warms (via an enlarging "hole") and then closing up once the earth cools down again.

If the ionosphere got dicked up by nuke testing, I assume that this could have had an effect on the production of ozone, altering its natural cycle as well. Thoughts on that idea? Maybe with screwing up the ionosphere, more radiation came in to create a thicker layer of ozone, trapping more heat in the lower levels of atmosphere...maybe?

Just ramblings and musings, but I don't hear this approach ever discussed...maybe because it's ridiculous? I don't know.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: myselfaswell

If pollution peaks and declines. Yes, maybe. Probably not, guess why?
Nobody on Ceres cares about models! Especially the declining sea ice. It was grossly under-dramatized for quite a while and then reality striked back.


SWIPA estimates that the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer by 2040. Scientists previously suggested this would not occur until 2070. The thickness of ice in the central Arctic ocean declined by 65% between 1975 and 2012; record lows in the maximum extent of Arctic sea ice occurred in March.

www.economist.com...

Another model busted, it's actually worse than we thought. With 10 C° surface temp anomaly near Spitzbergen and all that. No brainer, innit?

earth. nullschool.link



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

So, you cite models that were wrong and reality is showing a faster pace, the OP's source notes scientists saying that their models were wrong and the global warming pace is much slower than predicted.

Can we all just agree that these scientists just can't get anything accurate?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

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


If the Paris accord doesn't do crap it still works... Sounds like a sound 3 billion dollar investment for the US...lol



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
If the Paris accord doesn't do crap it still works... Sounds like a sound 3 billion dollar investment for the US...lol

Eh. That's chump change.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You mean the paywalled clickbait in the OP? Well. If you say so, care to share the study of said "experts"?

The actual data to gaze away is brought to you by... you've guessed it: scientists. No, we can't agree that they can't get anything accurate. The quality is pretty good, actually. No more grainy pictures and stuff.


edit on 20-9-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
When I read all of these climate change discussions and try to hear both sides of the argument I always come back to one core thought.

If we indeed can do anything collectively to influence this climate change in a positive way in regards to our planet and all of its inhabitants, why the heck wouldn't we?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Whenever I get on these threads I quote and talk about stuff actual Scientists and Scientific organizations have said. I'm not just an alarmist because I read a huff post article or something.

So If I'm getting my information on Global Warming from Scientists and organizations like NASA, where do you guys get your information from?

How does information regarding our Climate you get from some journalist, hold more weight that information I get from Scientists?

?

Or to put it a different way. If NASA tells me man made global warming is real, then which scientists are telling you it's not? There has to be some. Don't post graphs and charts you made up either, because you can't tell me you're smarter than a NASA scientist. I mean seriously.
edit on 20-9-2017 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Study of said "experts"

You're more than capable, I hope, of perusing their affiliations and then seeking out their scientific credentials, if you feel up to it. Yes, it's just the abstract unless you want to pay for it, but now you have the means to read it or try to find a free source for the study, if you want.

See, you bemoan the "paywalled clickbait in the OP," and I did, also. Apparently the difference between you and me is that I continued to research it, found other stories about it that did not have paywalls, and actually found the study cited in the articles (paywalled or not). This is all something that you, too, could do, if you really cared about the actual story's substance over arguing against it without (apparently) even seeing the study or reading any of the stories.

Correct me if I'm wrong...
edit on 21-9-2017 by SlapMonkey because: added snarkiness

edit on 21-9-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gumerk
If we indeed can do anything collectively to influence this climate change in a positive way in regards to our planet and all of its inhabitants, why the heck wouldn't we?

Answers to this question abound all over ATS, but I'll give you my take on it.

The bottom line, after about two total decades of paying attention to the AGW theory, and about one decade or really looking into it and changing my mind from AGW proponent to AGW skeptic, is that there is not enough absolutely proven, undeniable truth behind the theory, including (as is shown in this OP) especially the models and forecasting that has been shown time and again to be false, along with many, many stories of falsified or 'adjusted' data that makes data that otherwise shows a reality not aligned with the modes to then be aligned with the models.

Skepticism is a great tool when it comes to scientific study and debate, and all of the things that have transpired in the midst of the marketing of the AGW theory should make any thinking person pause and consider whether we are being manipulated, and to what extent.

I see evidence from scientists that point to solar activity being the main driver of climate change; I've read article discussing a correlation between large volcanic eruptions and depletion of the ozone; I've seen data that indicates that temperature change precedes CO2 fluctuations instead of CO2 causing it; I've seen too many mistakes or heard too many climate scientists admit to knowing that we don't know enough about the catalysts of our climate to be sure how much our activity is truly affecting the natural order and cycle. I've seen/read/heard all of these things, plus much more, that has cause me to alter my opinion of the AGW theory. Hell, scientists can't even say, with any level of true certainty, how much CO2 in the atmosphere is man's doing versus natural increases. I've seen numerous scientific papers that discuss that increases in atmospheric CO2 would actually be beneficial to the planet as a whole, or that the oceans are the main drivers of climate change.

The point is that there is so much conflicting scientific data out there that we don't have a very good handle, at all, on the catalysts of the earth's changes in climate, let alone how we are directly affecting it, or even if the effect is an absolutely negative thing.

So, to answer your question, we as individuals absolutely should do our part to be good stewards of our planet and do what we can not to be wasteful with anything--be your own individual environmentalist (not the crazy kind) and go out of your way to keep things clean and non-polluting. Ride a bike or walk to some places--it's better for you and the air (and those of us with asthma, too). Use less energy so that less coal is burned to create energy. Don't waste food, and use fresh, local ingredients as much as possible so that we need less factories processing foods. Wear natural-material clothing, use less plastics, etc., etc.

BUT, we as individuals should not be forced by governments and multi-national agreements to do expensive, overly-burdensome things in the name of theories that have yet to be proven. Laws shouldn't exist that stop people from collecting rain water on their own property, for instance. Governments shouldn't be telling private industries (in general, anyhow) that they must do this or that action that may raise production costs--and costs of the products/services for the consumer--by high percentage points in the name of a theory that has yet to be proven. Governments shouldn't be subsidizing any industry with taxpayer dollars just because it's an industry that looks good to AGW proponents.

So, I think that you get my point--I'm very much in favor of and in the practice of being a good steward of my local environment, and I'm happy to do things of my own accord that may help the larger picture of not polluting our planet. I'm not at all in favor of the heavy hand of burdensome laws and costs associated with governmental policies that force people and industries to overreact to, again, a theory that has yet to be proven.

Hopefully that makes sense to ya.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah I think they wouldn't admit the government was directly involved in climate change.

I think pollution mitigation should be the focus of the environmental movement. The destruction of habitat or complete collapse, and man cause extinction should be closely monitored and mitigated.

For instance how much round up will we allow to get into the water supply or any toxic substance?

I assume this approach would effect more donors.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

At our house, we are absolutely against using Round-Up (and, really, anything Monsanto-related).

Our yard may get a lot of dandelions, but we like being a yard where bees can come and get their first meals of the springtime versus killing them off with chemicals. Call us crazy...



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It also seems lazy. Just weed wacky and mow for goodness sake. Pull the weeds if you have to.

Or let the bees come. We need the bees.

Since Monsanto is joined at the hip with big gov, the pollution issues can really take a back seat. Even when they threaten to destroy water supplies.

We will probably die from poisoning in our food and water well before temp.
edit on 21-9-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Article from report authors confirming the study has been heavily misrepresented by climate change 'sceptics'.


www.theguardian.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Study of said "experts"
...




This is occupy pre-occupied, ashes over my head and thanks for passing the ball.


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.


As in: highly ambitious, but it sticked with 66% of the models that included the whole ensemble of rattails. Anyway. Something entirely different than "got their modelling wrong", innit?


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.


The meat of this piece, there we have it. A rather optimistic outlook on "historically unprecedented" steep declines. "Not as threatening" would be another misrepresentation at best.


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.


Pointing out the mere possibility of an impact due to quick implementation of the Paris Agreement, who would've thunkt! The last sentence is pretty straightforward, did you guys catch the drift implied? Let me translate the Tetris highscore slang:
Do something! ASAP, now, right away! There is no other option.

#MindTheClickbait

edit on 21-9-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

because scientists got their modelling wrong

you make it sound like they just made mistakes.

They did it on purpose.

What they did and still are doing is taking natural global warming called the Milankovitch cycles and a very small manmade warming and turning it into BS to fool everyone.

en.wikipedia.org...

When we end the high point of this cycle the Climate will begin to cool again.

But it will likely take 30 to 50 years.
By then the treehuggers and AGW people hope to have complete control over our lives and money.
And they hope that they will not be Tarring and feathered for there BS.

Yes global warming is real its called Milankovitch cycle but man made global warming is mostly BS by a group that wants to control us.

This helps see how they are trying to BS us just by adding a red line to there chart of the Milankovitch cycle.
www.greeniacs.com...
The red line is doctored data to prove there BS.
The problem they will have is years from now after the Milankovitch cycle ends the global temps will fall and no amount of CO2 we put in the air will mater.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join