Arctic global warming so rapid that computer measuring it rejected the results

Algorithm meant to be triggered if there is a fault in Alaskan recording equipment stops temperature recording because measurements were too high

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 10941.html

Change is coming fast to the earth especially the arctic regions. Call to action.

Western civilization as we know it right now is not sustainable.

Civilization as we know it right now is not sustainable. So we need to move to the next level.

Once the permafrost unfreezes (and releases all the methane) there's no going back.

See... all those models where wrong, wrong, wrong.......



Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

See... all those models where wrong, wrong, wrong.......



Best regards
Thomas

It is much worse than we thought. No joke time, unfortunately.

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

See... all those models where wrong, wrong, wrong.......



Best regards
Thomas

It is much worse than we thought. No joke time, unfortunately.

But it is all just a Chinese Hoax. So, unless much of the US stop being mentally ill or the rest of the world gets its act together and starts sanctioning countries not doing enough, all we can do is joke.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

Arctic global warming so rapid that computer measuring it rejected the results

Algorithm meant to be triggered if there is a fault in Alaskan recording equipment stops temperature recording because measurements were too high

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 10941.html

Change is coming fast to the earth especially the arctic regions. Call to action.

If the report by the Independent is complete and accurate, the problem lies with the computer programming.

Whatever data was sensed by the monitoring equipment should have been recorded, but flagged for special analysis.

It the computer program refused to accept the data, that was a programming fault.

BobPatterson wrote:

It the computer program refused to accept the data, that was a programming fault.

its not a bug, it is a feature, the programming is fine, just the alarm values have been too optimistic for life on earth as we know it.

best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson wrote:

If the report by the Independent is complete and accurate, the problem lies with the computer programming.

Whatever data was sensed by the monitoring equipment should have been recorded, but flagged for special analysis.

It the computer program refused to accept the data, that was a programming fault.

I had to reread your comment several times before realizing that I was in agreement with you.

This IS a programming fault: the data should have had a special flag for further analysis. A good system would NOT have had a tolerance cutoff like this.

This is an aviation forum (well, a section of one) - we are not exactly carbon-neutral tree huggers

Climate change happens- we are 10,000 years into the current interglacial period. Evidence indicates that the glacial,cycle is around 11,000 years. So let's all discuss further in a thousand years when we are freezing our nuts off!

I genuinely worry about what will happen in 50 or 100 years from now... it amuses me when I hear eco types saying we are destroying the Earth...we are not. We are just gradually making it unfit for human life. And that's not a bad thing: the beautiful Earth will be fine. The plague of humans may not...

You don't get to choose to come into this world but you do get to choose most of your life decisions. I choose to do things I enjoy in my life now I'm here- like go on lots of overseas business trips and holidays, fly aeroplanes and drive cars. I also choose not to have children because in my view the world won't be a very nice place in 50 years.

chimborazo wrote:

I genuinely worry about what will happen in 50 or 100 years from now... it amuses me when I hear eco types saying we are destroying the Earth...we are not. We are just gradually making it unfit for human life. And that's not a bad thing: the beautiful Earth will be fine. The plague of humans may not...

You don't get to choose to come into this world but you do get to choose most of your life decisions. I choose to do things I enjoy in my life now I'm here- like go on lots of overseas business trips and holidays, fly aeroplanes and drive cars. I also choose not to have children because in my view the world won't be a very nice place in 50 years.

Quite a philosophy to live by.

In what sense?

chimborazo wrote:

I choose to do things I enjoy in my life now I'm here- like go on lots of overseas business trips and holidays, fly aeroplanes and drive cars. I also choose not to have children because in my view the world won't be a very nice place in 50 years.

Yes, you choose to make it happen that the world will be worse in 50 years by your lifestyle choices, although not having kids does help.

chimborazo wrote:

This is an aviation forum (well, a section of one) - we are not exactly carbon-neutral tree huggers
.

that is your choice, not a natural law: https://www.atmosfair.de/en/kompensieren/flug

best regards
Thomas

I also choose not to have children because in my view the world won't be a very nice place in 50 years .

aha.
And you also looked after the prerequisites as a little cog that all turn in the same direction:

chimborazo wrote:

I choose to do things I enjoy in my life now I'm here- like go on lots of overseas business trips and holidays, fly aeroplanes and drive cars.

Note: I dislike the real existing greens with a vengeance. They are nothing more than another religious movement adulating another form of viriginity.