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 Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

page: 15
25
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by network dude
 




My God, if 10% of the greatest scientific minds in the world aren't sure, I don't feel so bad not being sure myself.

Tell me, if you had a 10% chance of not breaking your leg if you jumped off your roof, would you do it?
Would you pay more attention to the 10% who told you it would be fine or the 90% who said don't do it?
edit on 4/1/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


So 10% of the worlds greatest scientists will have broken legs?

Sorry, I just think that the Earth is going to do what it wants no matter how right the GWers think they are. It may warm more, or it may start cooling, or......it may stay about the same. To find out what happens next, tune in next week for the exciting conclusion of, "The World is doomed forever,..... or not"




posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Skymon612
 


Our lovely planet is a giant petrie dish - human activities have added over 80,000 synthetic chemicals and an infinite number of new chemical compounds to the mix. So old diseases are evolving, new ones are appearing and it's all escalating out of control. Add climate change, and deadly diseases like Ebola that were previously restricted to the tropics now threaten more Northern climes. Will people wake up and pull their heads out of their butts if a major pandemic hits? Probably not - they'll just blame Big Pharma or bioterrorists or the aliens. [sigh]



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

the2ofusr1
reply to post by j.r.c.b.
 

You seem to be experiencing what we up the coast usually get this time of year .I think it has something to do with the polar vortex being quite active this year ..It seems to drive the cold further south then normal ...peace


It's not active, it's weak due to the warmer air within it. Remember the old science rule about warm air expanding? Well, it applies here. It's a fat wimp and is being knocked about by more powerful oceanic weather ridges. In the Pacific, they name the high pressure there the "ridiculously resilient ridge". It's the source of the drought and it's also causing upwelling into the polar vortex.

What we had happen this winter was similar to what occurred in previous years, first noted in 2009: www.noaa.gov...

Here's the polar vortex today and it's still not normal. Normal is a nice tight cap fringed with swirls. right now, it's all pushed further south than it should be over the land masses and is looking more like an octopus. Over the winter, it looked like somebody took a sledgehammer to it. climate.cod.edu...

This is why we have been having SNAFU weather all around the global. Our oceans are warming and it's interfering with the usual weather generating processes. Our cold water currents are weakening and destabilizing as well. It's not good. The end result is not good.

It does things like this:

droughtmonitor.unl.edu...

And makes the UK incredibly soggy with hurricane like weather. You should've seen the persistent front that was pounding into the UK this last winter on the above radar because it was pushing up against the splatted vortex.

Haiyan and Sandy? Same thing--warm oceans building super storms.

That's climate change and it affects everything.

P.S. And even in the strangest of ways--both my neighbor and I were bit by brown recluses this last summer. They do not usually live in our region. They are moving North.

edit on 1/4/14 by WhiteAlice because: added ps



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
What about the 97% concensus of scientists that now believe humans are affecting climate? It is from NASA and NOAA, and a list of other organizations besides IPCC. I just don't see any entity(s) that could be clearer in the assessment. But I am open to scrutiny...



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Skymon612
 


More B.S. from the Global Warming, Climate Change Fearmongers.

No sale here.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Why are people still not believing this?

Most of the scientists are in agreement and the data is all out there in the internet for all to see and read. There are some amazing articles that summarize all of this will infographics and charts and links and sources to all of the Data.

Again, it's like trying to persuade "Answers in Genesis" that evolution is real and that the earth is older than 6000 years. No matter the proof or evidence you still will not believe.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


Pretty much. I have been kind of stunned and flabbergasted by many of the posts that I've seen on this thread. What I see is this--you have people who have spent nearly a decade of their lives becoming experts of a subject through education and experimentation. Nearly ever science class at an university requires lab time to be associated with it because "book learning" isn't enough. The students have to learn scientific methodology as well as learn the "facts" through direct observation and objectivity. Most degrees don't require that but science degrees do. We're talking about a very intense and direct education before they ever start working in their fields. The majority of the scientists that are cautioning against what we are doing to the planet are Phds. That means almost 10 years of both combined book learning reinforced with laboratory work. That is what it is to be a scientist. I was a dual science major and I spent so much of my time in labs that I'd come home everyday smelling like formaldehyde.

Contrast what it means to be a scientist and the years of learning required with what one is seeing on this thread. Dismissal of what would be considered expert opinion because of what? Bloggers? Or just roundabout statements of "I just don't see it happening" or "I don't think so". Basically, cognitive bias leaning towards a specific ideology, for whatever reason, to basically make a plea to authority on the subject of climate change and how it's come to pass. Against a whole lot of dudes with phds and decades of lab work....

Very appropriate to compare it to the anti-evolution crowd as the same types of dismissals are used there as well and let's not forget these kind of statements that are often found in both as well:


the2ofusr1
reply to post by Skymon612
 


Back in the day when the earth was flat there was a consensus .....As for science I find some of it interesting and helpful but science that works on better ways to destroy life I am not fond of ...peace


The idea that there was any consensus on the earth being flat was actually propaganda dished out in response to the ideas behind evolution. There was at no point in time within the last several thousand years where scientists of old believed the earth to be anything but round. It's 19th century propaganda very loosely based on a couple of monks. Deny ignorance, my friend. The "Flat Earth" is a myth.

Ovid in 8 ad in The Metamorphoses. Even a poet in 8 ad knew that the earth was round and heck, he even knew of the climatic zones:


And as five zones th' aetherial regions bind,
Five, correspondent, are to Earth assign'd:
The sun with rays, directly darting down,
Fires all beneath, and fries the middle zone:
The two beneath the distant poles, complain
Of endless winter, and perpetual rain.
Betwixt th' extreams, two happier climates hold
The temper that partakes of hot, and cold.
The fields of liquid air, inclosing all,
Surround the compass of this earthly ball

classics.mit.edu...

Flat Earth is regularly used to dismiss any scientific claim that affronts one's ideology. Technically, whoever came up with that bit of propaganda was a freaking genius because here we are 100 years later and still seeing it dished out at scientists as if they are somehow prone to ignorance.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jazz10
 


It's not so much the debris, though it is ungodly, but the warming of the oceans causing the currents within the ocean conveyor belt to falter. A better link to about that: science.nasa.gov...

It's really quite bad. The changes in salinity, temperature and water flows which are currently happening are likely to be behind a lot of the oceanic die offs that have been occurring. Not that long ago, thousands of baby sea lions came ashore and were starving to death. Little changes have big effects.

The NASA article is great as well in that it also explains why global warming can create cold continents which is something that a lot of people find confusing. We're supposed to be warming so why is it so cold. Our oceans, which are those climatic engines, are warming and the result is looking like cold, cold, cold on the continents.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The over zealous AGW porn peddlers given free rein can distort the facts and seldom engage in debating the facts have their job cut out for them .Tony Barboza's statment in the LA Times “One of the panel’s most striking new conclusions is that rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields, including those of corn and wheat.” would have fit nice with the rest of MSM fear porn ,but he got called out . "In fact, U.S. Corn Yields Have Increased Six Times Since the 1930s and Are Estimated to Double By 2030 according to Perry." " Not only is the LATimes/IPCC claim about agriculture false for the world, but also the USA:" wattsupwiththat.com... ith-claims/#more-106782 There are all the scientific graphs at the link that dont look too hard to understand except for those that might be suffering cognitive dissonance ....peace



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

amazing
Why are people still not believing this?

Most of the scientists are in agreement and the data is all out there in the internet for all to see and read. There are some amazing articles that summarize all of this will infographics and charts and links and sources to all of the Data.

Again, it's like trying to persuade "Answers in Genesis" that evolution is real and that the earth is older than 6000 years. No matter the proof or evidence you still will not believe.


Explain how the ice ages began and then stopped repeatedly.

The last one ended @ 20,000 years ago.

Carbon footprint there as well?

How is it a cyclic event(s) back then, but it's all man's fault now?

Explain!

Convince me that the ice ages were the result of man, or convince me that they never happened!

Either way, you Global-Scaremongers are seriously lacking in any historical explanation!

Convince me. C'mon! Explain the ice ages away.

Double dog dare you!



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


It's downright scary that people don't pay more attention to details, or even common sense.

Lets try the common sense... It took 100 million years for the oil we use today, to form in the first place. Now, we are pumping it up in trillions of barrels weekly, burning it all to create plastics, fuel and what not. This will roughly take 300-400 years in total to burn. So ask yourself. Will burning a fuel-source that took 100 million years to form, in about 3-400 years, have an impact on the environment?

Will turning millions of acres of forests / wild life habitats into farmland, have an impact on the environment?

Plow the oceans with thousands of trawlers, catching anything that gets close, and upturning the oceanfloor, will that have an impact on the environment?

Wasting precious resources in mind-numbing false wars, will that have an impact on the environment?

Climate change is real, imho. I do agree with many, that the proposed taxes, and economic "sanction's", will not be of much help, and its perfectly normal to be suspicious to such proposals. But to turn the entire canoe 180 degrees, and personally claim climate changes to be a scam, based on lying politicians, is to gamble with the entire planet's ecosystem.

Many in this thread have come with valid facts and data to the table. To me, Its undeniable evidence, but still there are some that would call it all for non-sense, because about 10% of the scientific community disagrees with the remaining 90%. This is where i raise my Picard arm to my forehead. Way to go strawmen!
The late 70's, Greenpeace was out alarming us all of global warming. They were all ridiculed, and just labeled "hippies". End of story.
The 80s where almost the same discussions as of today. It always ended up with a 2-sided version of debate just like today.
Slowly the scientists got more accurate and reliable data, concluding that the old climate change thing was for real.
So here they are again, the scientists, telling us how it is. Are we going to try and understand their findings, or as many do, just hit the "deny" button, and go on ramblings about the same old dogma's ?


edit on 1/4/2014 by kloejen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Gee you would think with that warm air mixed in it, it wouldn't have been so cold but that is the talking point hey .Its colder because it's warmer lol too funny ...peace
edit on 1-4-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Okay.

The Ice Ages that the world has had over its lifetime are associated with two factors--breakup of oceanic currents due to moving land masses (our plates are not static) combined with the precession of the earth in its orbit.

geology.utah.gov...

The preceding Ice Ages were not the result of man but were more likely due to slight changes in the earth's obliquity, wobble, and eccentricity in its path around the Sun along with instances where land masses developed in areas where the old conveyor belt existed (shutdown).



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

beezzer
C'mon! Explain the ice ages away.

Double dog dare you!


Oh, silly rabbit, you obviously have your head in the sand.



Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Are conservatives ever right?

They were wrong about slavery, wrong about women’s suffrage, wrong about segregation, wrong about gay rights. They were wrong about trickle down economics – it’s never worked and never will, as the ballooning wealth gap proves once again. They were wrong about Iraq (where are those WMD’s, anyway?) and wrong about Vietnam before it. They’re even wrong about evolution (in which only 43% of Republicans believe).

But no error, no misguided application of ideology, no deception is more damaging than the web of lies that conservatives have spun about climate change.


Why climate change denial is biggest conservative lie of all



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

the2ofusr1
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Gee you would think with that warm air mixed in it, it wouldn't have been so cold but that is the talking point hey .Its colder because it's warmer lol too funny ...peace
edit on 1-4-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)


Warm is relative. A warm day to someone living in a more temperate clime would probably be in the 70's. A warm day in the arctic is around 40-50 degrees F. It's about a 20-30 degree differential for what's "warm" for a specific climate. In the winter, the high is 0 degrees in the arctic. It's much, much colder than what we are used to further south and that's the issue. That "warmer" PV is fat and weak and dipping down but still bringing cold as hell temperatures to the rest of it.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

WhiteAlice


The preceding Ice Ages were not the result of man but were more likely due to slight changes in the earth's obliquity, wobble, and eccentricity in its path around the Sun along with instances where land masses developed in areas where the old conveyor belt existed (shutdown).


Don't take offence to this, it's not directed at you directly, but,

This all happened a long time ago. We have had hundreds of years to study and understand it. It's directly related to the warming problem we have today, yet, when asked the direct question, as was asked of you, your answer contained words like "more likely".

Is it just me, or do you see why it's possible that 90-95% of scientists might be wrong. Not are wrong, but might be.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

From the article, and the article is good:

Meanwhile, another study found that of the 141 books denying climate change – none of which were scientifically peer reviewed – 130 of them were written by conservative think tanks funded by Big Oil, or by authors affiliated with them.
In other words, the “debate” about climate change isn’t among scientists. It’s between scientists and industry lackeys who are paid to lie.
Read more: forward.com...

Guess that only muddies the waters.
As to how can we have snow during global warming:

the cold air we’re experiencing is because arctic air has been displaced from the Arctic. In New York, we’re shivering. In Alaska, they’re (relatively) burning up, with temperatures in the 50s and 60s.

I just can't find any sense in disagreeing with so much peer reviewed evidence and the groups found here. Yes I know science can be bought and sold, but not on this scale. So often people complain about lack of evidence and suggest scholarly reports or peer reviewed studies. Well now we have them from around the globe and we still can't agree.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Explain how the ice ages began and then stopped repeatedly. Um...I don't need to there are plenty of good sources for that information the internet if you really need that information.

The last one ended @ 20,000 years ago. And that is related to man made global warming, how?

Carbon footprint there as well? Again, if you really need to find the links to carbon footprints, man made global warming and ice ages, i'm not the guy for that, but there is plenty of information on the internet.

How is it a cyclic event(s) back then, but it's all man's fault now? Oh, there is a bigger cycle, that's true and cycles that get larger and larger and larger and go back millions of years but...Scientists that study this stuff for a living and almost every single one of them has come to the conclusion that Man is causing global warming despite any natural cycle and it's having a devastating effect. Are you going to tell me that you're a scientist with decades of work under your belt and have better studies than these people? Do you really?

Explain! Just did.

Convince me that the ice ages were the result of man, or convince me that they never happened! Why do you wish to be convinced that ice ages were results of man and never happened? We have pretty good proof now, that ice age happened. I suppose you're going to deny evolution next?

Either way, you Global-Scaremongers are seriously lacking in any historical explanation! How about instead of calling me a Global-Scaremonger, you call me someone who believes ...wait for it...wait for it...SCIENCE!

Convince me. C'mon! Explain the ice ages away. Again with this wish to divert modern global warming with an imaginary ploy to make people convince you that ice ages didn't happen. Sounds like a bizarre request to me?

Double dog dare you! Nope. I know that ice ages happened! LOL



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

amazing
The last one ended @ 20,000 years ago. And that is related to man made global warming, how?



I sure hope you ducked. That thing that just whizzed by your head at amazing speeds was the POINT.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join