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.

 

Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

page: 19
16
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Theosist

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Greven

UMMMM, what about every single prediction made by their modeling has been wrong didn't you understand. You described a theory of AGW.

1) You don't even mention how much of atmospheric CO2 is man made.
2) You don't mention the fact that raw data is manipulated with predictive models to "adjust" for things like heat sinking, which for some reason they adjust raw data upwards? when heat sinking should actually RAISE raw temps and they should adjust them downward? How does THAT work?
3) These same predictive models have consistently been wrong in moderate length predictions yet we're supposed to trust them extrapolated out to the nth degree, because DOOM PORN.
4) As I said, only in AGW have failed predictions been hailed as accomplishments that necessitate even MORE drastic measures to be taken to adjust for what they predict.?.?.

Jaden

Supposed wrong predictions are irrelevant. Indeed, I did describe a theory.

1) Quantity does not matter to the theory, only the magnitude of change; greenhouse gases are gases that alter the energy (heat) distribution in the atmosphere, and we wouldn't be here without such gases. However, simple reasoning says that, if the CO2 in the atmosphere rises by 2 ppm per year, and we emit enough CO2 to raise it by more than 2 ppm per year, then we're kinda the ones making it rise. It is the change - the increase that matters.
2) Raw data and predictive models being wrong or right does not impact the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something established more than a hundred years ago.
3) Models are attempts to describe the magnitude of change; the fact that over 20 Gigatonnes of CO2 is being emitted by humans annually can be calculated just by knowing the amount of fossil fuels we consume and their average emissions - which are far more than the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere. AGW is a slowly-unfolding calamity compared to say the Spanish Flu, which killed about 5% of the entire world's population within a year.
4) I'm not sure what failed predictions you refer to, nor why you think they matter to the theory of AGW.


A small upward trend in a moving average plotted through the “global average temperature” is not a “calamity” but a mathemstical contrivance that has next to no physical meaning. And that is all that your “global warming” is, by its operational definition.


New York City covered in a mile of ice is 5 degrees away from today's global average temperature. These are not 'small' trends.




posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Theosist

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Greven

UMMMM, what about every single prediction made by their modeling has been wrong didn't you understand. You described a theory of AGW.

1) You don't even mention how much of atmospheric CO2 is man made.
2) You don't mention the fact that raw data is manipulated with predictive models to "adjust" for things like heat sinking, which for some reason they adjust raw data upwards? when heat sinking should actually RAISE raw temps and they should adjust them downward? How does THAT work?
3) These same predictive models have consistently been wrong in moderate length predictions yet we're supposed to trust them extrapolated out to the nth degree, because DOOM PORN.
4) As I said, only in AGW have failed predictions been hailed as accomplishments that necessitate even MORE drastic measures to be taken to adjust for what they predict.?.?.

Jaden

Supposed wrong predictions are irrelevant. Indeed, I did describe a theory.

1) Quantity does not matter to the theory, only the magnitude of change; greenhouse gases are gases that alter the energy (heat) distribution in the atmosphere, and we wouldn't be here without such gases. However, simple reasoning says that, if the CO2 in the atmosphere rises by 2 ppm per year, and we emit enough CO2 to raise it by more than 2 ppm per year, then we're kinda the ones making it rise. It is the change - the increase that matters.
2) Raw data and predictive models being wrong or right does not impact the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something established more than a hundred years ago.
3) Models are attempts to describe the magnitude of change; the fact that over 20 Gigatonnes of CO2 is being emitted by humans annually can be calculated just by knowing the amount of fossil fuels we consume and their average emissions - which are far more than the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere. AGW is a slowly-unfolding calamity compared to say the Spanish Flu, which killed about 5% of the entire world's population within a year.
4) I'm not sure what failed predictions you refer to, nor why you think they matter to the theory of AGW.


Models don’t matter?

Because you have nothing even close to a sound model, you have no idea how changes in CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever their source, affect the “global average temperature” and no idea of how changes in the “global average temperature” affect local climates across the world. In other words, you have no idea of how and to what degree human carbon emissions affect the complex system of the Earth’s climates, yet here you are calling it a “calamity”. That’s idiocy or dishonesty or a mix of both.

This is fraud at the most basic level of science, so that one doesn’t need a degree in climate physics to understand this but only a sound grounding in logic and the philosophy of science by which to recognise when a “science” has grossly overstepped its epistemological bounds in its baseless speculative inferences. The Earth’s “climate” is not even well-defined let alone well-understood, so that climatology does not even possess the means to tell us what the theorists of AGW are proposing as though it were “settled science” - but people hold anything with the moniker of “science” is such quasi-mystical esteem that they think the claims of climatologists are akin to propositions of Newtonian mechanics, electronics, or basic biology - because “science”.

When people are arguing that it isn't even happening, then no, models do not matter to the simple logic behind AGW.

I'm starting at the basics because that's where issues lie. Moving on from that has been a struggle, given the false propaganda enshrined by those who believe we not causing change.

Here's the sound logic behind AGW:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the distribution of energy (aka heat) in the atmosphere.
2) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
3) Humans are emitting a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide.
4) Ergo, humans are altering the distribution of energy in the atmosphere (aka AGW).

Can you disprove it?



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

A small upward trend in a moving average plotted through the “global average temperature” is not a “calamity” but a mathemstical contrivance that has next to no physical meaning.


Small trends is all takes to create bad situations, as far as climate goes. Ignoring them doens't fix the problem. At what point does it make sense to you, to focus on global climate issues? We already have increased droughts, harsher weather, hot weather records now outpace cold weather records 2 to 1. A video of 20 years of melting arctic ice by NASA means what to you.. nothing? How many years before it is no longer a "trend" and more serious situation that finally has to be addressed?

I think many are just content to let the situation go well past the tipping point, where ridiculous measures will need to take place, to try and counter the climate situation. Pity people think burying their heads in the sand is a sound strategy.



new topics
 
16
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join