It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Climate models over-estimated warming

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 03:39 AM
Oh no kidding.

Science = predictability... predictability = identifying variables

Climate = !predictable

Variables unidentified

Crazy Aussies

Climate models were wrong and being updated to better reflect the results of satellite temperature measurements that confirmed a slowdown in temperature rises over the past two decades, a group of leading climate scientists has said. The admission is contained in a new paper published in Nature Geoscience, which says natural factors and unforeseen events were responsible for models overestimating the temperature rise in the troposphere.

They were wrong? How could that be?

I thought there was a 97% consensus?

Wha happon?

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 03:56 AM

According to my Father who was in the army in the late 1960's - early 1970's the US Army conducted several Atmospheric nuclear tests (no secrets there)


He also says that scientists informed those in the army that said tests were affecting the upper atmosphere and it was expected that there would be a 1 - 2 degree temperature increase in the next 50 years because of it.

I've never been able to verify this (Dad was in the NZ Army and the USA shared information with them, which is how he supposedly heard of this) but if true..... We've all been conned and lied to.

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 03:57 AM
a reply to: toysforadults

The record cold temps have been running 18 to one of the record warm temps of the world... Anyone who is interested can find these numbers themselves...

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 04:03 AM
Please let the global warming debate come to an end
MMGW is winning - high in Georgia near 100
Anti-warming winning - High 78
I am going for the Anti- MMGW bunch . I like highs in the 70s

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 04:15 AM
Yeah im on the fence.

I'm not sure if climate change is human induced or not but I still don't believe we should be polluting any part of the earth just for the sake of an economy or progress within a society

But what's true is that 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred this century, each year slightly hotter than the last.

I also have no doubt that the numbers and timelines have been greatly exaggerated by those who feel strongly about human induced climate change.

I've probably got another forty or fifty years left to see for myself I guess. I can definitely notice the difference in overall climate between now and my childhood.

Should we continue to 'progress' at the current rate and NOT curb our pollution AT ALL for say, the next seven hundred years? Allow the population to reach a trillion?? Burn oil and coal and level forests and jungles, dig massive holes and grow concrete and steel everywhere we live???

If not for seven hundred years, then maybe for twelve hundred?

When? How long can civilisation continue as we are before we DO start to have an effect on the climate?

Just because the predictions are out by a bit does that mean "oh awesome, just keep dumping it in the ocean"?

Climate change may or may not be human induced right now, but the FACT that someday it WILL be, is undeniable.

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 06:42 AM
a reply to: Breakthestreak

I agree with you, in that we should not be polluting the earth in the name of progress, precisely because the measure of the progress a society makes, is how much power it can generate without harming the environment it utilises for the purpose.

For example, we see in China, which is not a progressive society in the least, a huge increase in pollution over the last few decades, whereas in places where progress IS being made, societies which used to output huge amounts of dirt, are scaling back that output, and bringing power production and material production methods online, which have a much reduced environmental impact.

The real mark of progress is not made with fossil fuel use and irresponsible handling of heavy industries waste products. Progress comes from having all of the benefit of a power production method, without any of the drawbacks, having all the material manufacture needs met, with none of the environmental impact, being able to achieve great feats of engineering and the like, in a manner which has little to no effect other than positive.

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 07:04 AM
a reply to: toysforadults

Seeing as how science measures things with something called a "margin of error" over-estimating is part of the package. And to top that off, as technology improves science strives to improve its methodology so that it can reduce that "margin of error". So adjusting predictions down is ALSO part of the package. This thread is just distorting data to push an agenda.
edit on 30-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 07:11 AM
a reply to: Breakthestreak

You are very very confused.

The theory that man is causing climate change (increasing global temperature) by emitting CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels, increased agriculture ect. has NOTHING and let me repeat this, NOTHING to do with pollution.

CO2 is a naturally occuring gas. It is essential to life and the carbon cycle. It naturally present in our atmosphere and always has been.

Now the big question. Climate models were developed in the 1990's and didn't hold up for more than 10 years before going seriously off track.

Do you still believe that the same 'scientists" that developed those climate models can accurately predict what the global temperature will be in 80 to 85 years?

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:15 AM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Oxygen is also a totally natural product, breathed out by trees. Of course, too rich a concentration of it is toxic, or to put it another way, a pollutant.

Furthermore, yes, climate change DOES have something to do with pollution, for more reasons than this alone. If you pollute streams, rivers, and the seas, with ANYTHING that ought not be in them, or ought not be in them in the concentrations involved, you wind up with dead fish, polluted river basins, extinction of delicate species of plants, animals, and even the tiny planktons and other smaller lifeforms, which larger ones rely on for their food. Killing off the smallest little animal in an ecology, can mean that the things which feed upon them also dwindle in number, or die off, meaning that the things which prey upon them in turn ALSO are put at serious risk of extinction, by way of having too little to eat, and here is the rub. Ever excretion, every drop of urine, every lump of excreta, every drop of animal blood, shed by other animals, nurtures the soil and the water. The decomposing remains of a kill, the things the predators left behind, nourish the ground, putting nutrients into the soil, feeding bugs and providing a rich source of volatiles for plants to grow from, to feed on. This has a measurable effect in terms of the health of trees and plants, which , as you know, breathe out oxygen, in response to consuming CO2. Sounds like a solution there, right? Wrong. If the CO2 levels reach too high, trees will be unable to process other nutrients they need, like nitrates in the soil for example, because the receptors they use to actually process that nutrient will be saturated instead with CO2. Its an actual thing, and you ought to look it up.

So, unless you can ensure that there are soooooo many healthy, unthreatened trees, over soooooo much landmass, so as to make certain that the CO2 level is never so high that the trees are negatively effected by it (as we would be by an overabundance of oxygen, for example), then what you are effectively doing is deliberately poisoning, polluting your environment, all because you simply failed to understand the biochemistry involved with something as simple as the way trees work.

The problem here is that no one who stands against the drive to clean up the human races act, seems to have the slightest understanding of any of these things. They believe, wrongly, that anything that was in the Earth, cannot harm the lifeforms and the ecology of the Earth. They believe, for no reason other than the fact that people who make money from the ignorance of others have told them so, that you cannot pollute a thing, with chemicals which occur naturally, despite the fact that arsenic, lead, uranium and other harmful substances, all occur naturally, but are DRASTICALLY pollutant, when disposed of as byproduct of manufacture, and allowed to enter ecosystems which were never meant to deal with them.

Just as a rose in ones petunia patch is a weed, so is an overabundance of CO2, so is arsenic, so is lead a pollutant, as are many other chemicals which, while they may appear in nature, are being pumped out of industry and destroying the habitats and ecologies which maintain the quality and the stability of our atmosphere.

The reality is that you cannot damage any single part of an ecology, without risking the entire thing, and the ecology of this planet is what maintains its atmosphere, which is what allows us to be protected from the worst of the suns fury, breath safely without mechanical assistance, provides rain that our crops might grow, allows for the correct amount of heat to remain in the oceans and our air, not so much that we lose our polar caps, but not so little that the Earth becomes a snowscape.

The Earth may produce CO2, but because it already does it, we should be limiting the increase in concentration that we are responsible for, not throwing our hands up and saying "Ah, well, if the planet is doing it, screw it!"

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 09:22 AM
a reply to: Breakthestreak

So what is your solution, then?

I'm a massive advocate of localized stewardship of the environment--if we did more on the individual and community levels, pollution and massive islands of plastic in the ocean wouldn't be nearly the "problem" that it is today (I put "problem" in quotes because it's still uncertain by anyone how much negative effect all of our trash has had on a planet that has proven to be very adept at meeting everything that we throw at it head on).

The problem therein lies with the hypocrisy of many so-called environmentalists and others who preach on about "saving" the planet--very few people practice what they preach. Until the individual starts making notable changes to their habits--I mean, really, how hard is it to drop things off at a recycling plant, or separate recyclables from trash?--then all of this talk about the AGW theory and how humans are a problem or a solution is moot and pointless. People need to just stop yapping about things and just do it. I live a more sustainable lifestyle than many save-the-planet people that I know.

If it weren't such a laughable idea, I might argue that the massive amount of hypocrisy in the global-warming debate is what's causing environmental problems, and I don't see that petering out any time soon.

I'm sorry that I chose your comment upon which to rant, because you and I actually agree, I just felt a need to vent because I always see a lot of good points in these debates, but very few solutions that don't have to do with government-induced laws or punishments or taxes.

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

The OP was talking about climate change and how the climate models that were developed by the IPCC are running too hot.

Concerns over co2 causing temperature change in the global climate are obviously assigning too high a sensivity value to CO2.

The only thing that has happened because of rising CO2 is the earth has experienced a 14 % increase in greening.

we are currently going bankrupt paying for "green energy" and carbon taxes that are obviously not necessary.

If we weren't currently bankrupt paying for the fight against CO2, we would have money to resolve true environmental issues.

Stop confusing pollution with climate change so that reasonable solutions to pollution can be developed. Deal with what's on the table right now. NOt with what you think may happen in 100 years and it may be possible to do some good.

posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 10:35 AM
Only refers to short-term differences.

new topics

top topics


log in