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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The trend continues in August; The World is Warming as NASA says hottest on record

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:33 AM
a reply to: ParasuvO

Unless you are prepared to actually realize WHY we cannot make a perfect world, no sense at all in feeding the FEAR FACTOR, that is run by BILLIONAIRES.

There is but one thing wrong with the world: People live here.

Do you really believe that average people are capable of getting along and living in a perfect world? What about below average people? lol

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:46 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

I don't do "doom porn" typically, bbracken, as I am actually a pragmatist; however, I do see things occurring that give me a whole hell of a lot of trepidation and concern. If you look over my post history on anything climate based, you'll see that pragmatist and I most often say, "regardless of causation". I do not dismiss the regular "cycles" (and minicycles) of all those things that combine to create the climate. My position is that anthropogenic forcing is a small but important part of that as that is the aspect which is within our control via our behaviors and policies. All else is outside of it.

I actually perceive a potential cooling occurring instead. I find the behaviors of the AO and NAO and their affects on the great swirling mass up North to be rather fascinating. One of the things that I looked at was the biomes around the time before our current interglacial. The rainforests of the Pacific NW were forest steppe. California, iirc, was arid steppe and the East of the Rockies was largely taiga. I find that interestingly similar in some ways when comparing it to what has been occurring in the last few years. Not claiming anything as being set in stone but that is something that just "nudges" me.

Again, though, regardless of causation--the fact remains is that any sort of disruption, natural or manmade, to climates does have a particularly negative impact on humanity. That's not doom porn. That's looking at history.

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 01:50 PM
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I agree that there have been impacts in the past. That is a given. Also a given is that cooling is coming. How soon? No one knows...

Of the 2 options, global warming or global cooling, cooling is the most destructive, the larger threat to man. Warming is likely to be nothing more than an inconvenience. Cooling could cause billions of deaths.

Fact is, we do not understand climate and all the players in the game well enough to be shouting doom and gloom as is being done. Frankly, the GH effect is not completely understood. Predictions fail at every turn.

Another glaciation is coming. The conditions that cause them still continue to exist. Glaciation, in the past, has always come after a peak in temperature. Peaks that we have not quite reached yet. The question is not whether co2 is a is not. The main drivers are astronomic cycles, cooling and warming cycles related to the oceans and ocean currents and...geez.. there is another that escapes me atm. My memory is as long as a peanut sometimes. Another possibly huge player is cosmic rays. There have been several studies that indicate significant correlation with cosmic radiation and temperatures. I believe it is still early to claim that, but it is interesting. I have a paper somewhere...will see if I can find it and link it here.

Regarding the doom porn. That has become something of an annoyance. Doom this, doom that...all the doom from the last 20 years adds up to zippo, nada, nunca, nuttin. Too much of the climate debate smacks of the same hysteria. Perhaps I am just attributing the doom sayers who have jumped on the bandwagon too much.

Nevertheless, consider this: Too many prognostications are being made about what is "going" to happen 50 or 100 years out. Tell me truthfully if anyone in the year 1914 could have predicted anything with any accuracy, given the massive increase in energy, in production, in transportation. Could they have taken into account the technological developments such as computers, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, air travel etc etc. Could they, if they had an absolute mastery and understanding of climate change, have predicted what our climate would be like today?

It's ridiculous. Specially since the IPCC has a worse record predicting anything than your local weatherman.

Should we be good stewards of our planet? Oh hell yeah. Should we destitute and prostrate ourselves at the altar of climate change? I think not.

There is every indication that the trends we have seen over the last 17 years will continue for another 10 or so years and that we might even see a bit of cooling before warming comes back. Can anyone say for sure what is going to happen during the next 10 years? Then wtf can they say about 50 years from now? lol

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 02:14 PM
It's pretty hard to put faith in this religion when your wearing a flannel in the daytime in early september and finding frost on your car in the morning.

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 02:15 PM
This global warming is a lot like peeing on someones head and telling him it's raining.

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:30 PM

originally posted by: LDragonFire

The heat is building in the Oceans while parts of North American had a mild summer.

Yet again more scientist confirm the Earth is getting warmer. Climate change is still on the march.

As our oceans turn to acid, standing by for Koch Brothers deniers.

What in the world are you talking about?... I don't work and I am not standing for the Koch Brothers...

BTW, NO ONE has negated the fact that "the climate has been changing"... What we differ in is that people like you blame anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 while others, including me, think that the Climate Changes occurring are NATURAL.

The Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, this in turn allows more radiation from the Sun, and from other sources outside our solar system, to enter the Earth. This increase radiation affects life including life in the oceans.

The Earth has been warming since the early 1600, yet people like you want to claim that the CO2 that was released almost 3 centuries later is what caused the climate to change when it was already changing and warming before the height of the industrial revolution...

Anyway, you already tried to derail the thread by mentioning the evidence I presented in a thread that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC, and if I addressed your post it would have changed the topic of this thread. Now you change your tune and try to claim that I must be standing by the Koch Brothers?...

How about you actually come up with an argument that makes sense?...

First of all, the oceans are alkaline, and not acidic. Not to mention that the majority of studies done testing the PH of the oceans occur at, or close to estuaries. The runoff from factories, chemical plants ect are released in these areas and this runoff affect negatively those areas. That's what we actually have to fix.. There is good evidence that shows that the changes that have been seen in marine life in some areas are caused because of the runoff from other human activities, such as chemicals from dye plants and other chemicals are being released into the oceans, and not because of CO2.

The oceans have had to deal with atmospheric CO2 levels 7-12 times higher than they are today and the "oceans never turned to acid"... In fact with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present there was more biodiversity in land and in the oceans.

A lot of people believe the term "ocean acidification" means the oceans are acidic, but this is not true. A neutral PH for the oceans would be 7, and the oceans are now alkaline at 8.1 PH. Before the industrial revolution the ocean PH has been "estimated" to have been from 8.0 to 8.3 PH. The lesser the number the more "alkaline" ocean water turns and at 7 it would be neutral.

We really don't know what will happen, or if the oceans will turn to neutral PH or less. However, the oceans PH has been lower than it is today yet why was it that they didn't "turn acidic" when there was higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than now yet all of a sudden they will "turn acidic"?

Make no mistake, I do think that we need to find ways to stop the release of "real toxic chemicals", the dumping of plastics and other trash into the oceans etc. But since CO2 levels in the past have been higher than today and the oceans didn't "turn into acid" why would CO2 do it now?

edit on 19-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:52 PM

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You're going into an ice-age. You mustn't speak for the entire planet based on your local weather perceptions.

I think I will speak for the entire planet because WE do know better, thank you. GLOBAL WARMING IS BS !

Cheers - Dave

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 07:31 AM

originally posted by: DAZ21
Hold on didn't you guys just have one of the coldest winters in decades?

Oh also they are predicting another freezing winter this year. So which is it global warming or cooling, you can't pick and choose.

I knew a guy who was certain global warming was fake because it was cold where he lives. I seriously thought he was just being funny about the crappy weather, then raised he was serious. It was especially cold in his metro area, thus the world average temperature must also be cold. I was baffled, then I remembered the kids in grade school who made fun of the kids who liked to read and it all made sense.

Feel free to argue the reason (s) for warning, but let's stop calling thermometers liars, shall we?

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:21 AM

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Rezlooper

You have a lot of good ideas, most of them have been out there for quite a while now.

One of them, however, you're not going to sell very easily:

The days of Suburbia need to end. We need to stop urban sprawl and find ways to eliminate the need for so many cars on the road. "Green" hybrid buses need to be the new carpool. There needs to be major investment in downtowns for more living space versus more sprawl into the countryside. For example, Atlanta and Barcelona, Spain are the same size cities, but Atlanta has 10 times the GHG emissions because Atlanta sprawls out over 4,280 square miles while Barcelona sits inside 162 miles. Over 5 million people living within 162 square miles. Think about it, energy demands would be much lower, infrastructure costs much less and much less human fatalities due to crashes. And think about the immediate jobs created if a massive plan was put in place.

A lot of people, like me, refuse to be packed into the concrete and steel jungle, like sardines. Especially those of us that are used to having yards, gardens and being able to see most of the sky and horizon.

I've lived in all three: Mega cities, suburbia, and now the country.

The worst was the cities. Loud. Noisy. Crowded. Stank, and was just depressing as hell to be surrounded by mostly glass, concrete and steel.
Suburbia was better. I had a yard, trees and a garden. My kids were able to play in their yards. They were able to walk to school and home. I was able to use my telescopes and star gaze, something that was almost impossible for me to do in the cities.
Now here in the country is even better. Acres of land, large areas for gardens, my own chickens for eggs. Any trees I cut down I plant new ones. Wild life is all about, and the well water is so good it makes the best darn coffee, tea and beer that I've ever made.

You couldn't DRAG me back to living in a city.

So you'll have a hard time selling that idea.

Yeah, I know. There would be riots in the streets before anyone would give up where they live. I live in a small town myself and I wouldn't move into a mega city either. I know in Mpls metro over the past 20 years they have built some pretty nice transit stations and have grown the car pool idea. The parking lots at these centers are packed with cars that aren't making the 20 mile trek into the city every day...and yet, the rush hour seems just as bad today as it did 20 years ago. Somethings gotta give, but I agree with you, for is what it is.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:43 AM

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Rezlooper

What are your ideas on how these ideas can translate to reality in a world where everyone who would affect these good changes just wants to be left the hell alone?

That, my friend, is a great question.

I think that's why AGW wants a tax so bad. They hope it will persuade every body into doing better, but hey, they tax the hell out of alcohol and cigarettes and has that stopped people from having drinks and smoking cigarettes? Absolutely not. We are going to do the things we want regardless what government tells us. It's just human nature. And the bad thing about that is, once they got a tax, where would that money go? As usual, it always gets diverted somewhere rather than back into helping save the world as it should. There's too much government waste, so a tax would end up being just that, a waste. It might help to stop certain corporations from emitting so much gas, though.

Maybe the governments need to provide incentives to change peoples way of thinking. Just what that would mean, IDK. We shouldn't have to bribe people in order to make a better future for their children, but we are all living in our own little worlds now and like you said...we just want to be left alone.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:23 AM
Oh yeah how large is the Antarctic ice sheet now? NASA is a shill for the administration. Remember the head of NASA praising Muslims for their recent contributions to science.? Its just part of their plan to implement programs which extract cash from a hapless society. Shut down the coal plants that put out that nasty dangerous co2. Humans have always prospered during natural cyclical periods of warm weather. I thought we were supposed to be under three feet of water in now.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:46 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

I agree actually on most points of what you say, especially the 50 to 100 years projections. Too many things to add in and unforeseen events that could tweak it. We could have a large volcanic eruption, as in the past, that triggers a cooling effect for years to throw off those projections. The earth and the sun are dynamic and can be unpredictable so 50-100 year projections are pure crystal ball.

I'm actually rather glad that you see the possibility of another glaciation coming. That's kind of what I'm seeing as well. Without necessarily granting the earth as possessing some sort of awareness, I see it as basically evolving in its own way to be self-correcting. Big fan of the Gaia Hypothesis. Warming could be more than just an inconvenience but cooling is, by far, the greater danger.

My background isn't just science but accounting (I call myself a literal bean counter). I don't think that we need to destitute ourselves on the altar of climate change at all. I think that we should allow the market to reign but develop better cost-benefit analyses to not just account for what is the most profitable way of doing things but also to place a value on stewardship because this is where all of us live. It is in all of our interests to keep our home clean. I'm also a huge fan of the late Ray Anderson. This clip is from the documentary, The Corporation, which, some might find odd, was required viewing for one of my SBA classes.

PS. For any of that are curious as to what documentaries were required viewing in business law and other courses--The Corporation, The Smartest Guys in the Room (Enron) and The Inside Job. Those three were required viewing for all School of Business Administration majors.
edit on 20/9/14 by WhiteAlice because: added ps

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 06:06 PM

originally posted by: dogstar23

Feel free to argue the reason (s) for warning, but let's stop calling thermometers liars, shall we?

Are you keeping track, and do you have the raw temperature data for the past 2,000 years to make such a claim?

While we can read thermometers today the fact is that today the heat island effect is stronger than it used to be 100 years ago. Heck today the heat island effect is stronger than it was 20 years ago because cities grow, which means more asphalt is added, more buildings are built, more cars etc. Most temperature stations these days are found near areas where the heat island effect is very strong and this affects the readings.

The data that most scientists get to see these days is already adjusted data and not the raw temperature data. I have already shown this several times.

Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

Then there is the Russian data that the Russians have stated that the Hadley Center for Climate Change tampered with.

What the Russian papers say
Russia affected by Climategate
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The same thing has happened with Chinese temperature data, and the "errors" that Hansen and others have published because it only backs their AGW claims.

Then there are many other reports of other agencies including NASA tampering with temperature data, including:

Veteran Meteorologist Joe Bastardi On NASA November Temperature: “A Fraudulent Report… Tampering With Data”By P Gosselin on 22. Dezember 2013 Joe Bastardi at his Saturday Summary here tells us what’s already known: The claim that November 2013 was the hottest month ever is fraudulent. He slams NASA and NOAA for picking data that solely suits an agenda. At the 6-minute mark Bastardi shows the GISS temperature trend from 1999. eezRU.dpuf

So you tell me, how the hell do you know that the temperatures we have today are in fact warmer when we know that temperature data has been tampered with to push for a political agenda?...

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:58 PM
a reply to: WhiteAlice


My view of coming glaciation is that it is coming...just a matter of when.

Given the duration of this current interglacial, we could see the beginning of a long term cooling trend at any time. Unfortunately, it could also mean 1000 years from now. Well...not unfortunately lol Global cooling would be very bad. The doomsayers crying about global warming have no idea how benign warming is compared to cooling.

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:48 PM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: WhiteAlice


My view of coming glaciation is that it is coming...just a matter of when.

Given the duration of this current interglacial, we could see the beginning of a long term cooling trend at any time. Unfortunately, it could also mean 1000 years from now. Well...not unfortunately lol Global cooling would be very bad. The doomsayers crying about global warming have no idea how benign warming is compared to cooling.

Well, considering that glaciation has repeated over and over again, saying that we're going to be headed for another glaciation is pretty much a safe bet and the only relatively unknown is when, lol. What I've been chewing in my head is along the lines of NOAA's warm oceans, cool continents idea. That we could actually knock ourselves into a sort of Little Ice Age in the Northern hemisphere due to warming.

In almost seeming contradiction though, the warmer springs in the same areas that have been seeing sharper bouts of cooling have basically created a scenario where the trees are sucking up more CO2 than ever. Neat.

These kind of effects, I think show that dynamic self-correcting earth and also why I think particularly long range projections are not the best idea. The earth will respond in a multitude of ways--some predictable and some unforeseen. Even all those fires we've been having on the West coast really is just a correction. Sweep out the dead to let the survivors flourish would be the normal effect of a wildfire.

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:21 PM
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Well, considering that glaciation has repeated over and over again, saying that we're going to be headed for another glaciation is pretty much a safe bet and the only relatively unknown is when, lol. What I've been chewing in my head is along the lines of NOAA's warm oceans, cool continents idea. That we could actually knock ourselves into a sort of Little Ice Age in the Northern hemisphere due to warming.

That is EXACTLY my point. Man is not screwing everything up. What is happening, has happened before, it just so happens man is here this time with technology. Last time man was at a very low level of technology and almost died off. The time before that man was at an even lower level of technology and man himself was not the same as today, but rather nothing more than a brutish, smart apelike being.

Regarding the oceans, we seem to be entering, or have entered the cooling phase of a 60 year cycle. I am not sure about this, but from what I have read, if true, we could see some cooling trends established that could last for another 10-30 years.

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:33 PM
So are we all finally in agreement then ?

Climate scientists really haven't got a clue and can't predict a damn thing because the system is far too dynamic to be able to do so.

Therefore, the simple answer is for us to clean up our act either way (and taxation is NOT the answer), as well as learning to work within mother nature rather than trying to fight against it... and learn to adapt accordingly.

This planet has never promised us an easy ride, so why the hell are we expecting it to ??

It's time to stop with the manmade-global-warming-is-going-to-kill-us-in-50-years panic fear mongering crap.

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:51 PM
a reply to: CranialSponge

LOL I bet not. The climate change hystericals will not be swayed until they are facing absolutely undeniable data, and even then many will continue to be die-hards.

I do agree with the entirety of you post.

edit on 21-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:16 PM

originally posted by: CranialSponge
So are we all finally in agreement then ?

Climate scientists really haven't got a clue and can't predict a damn thing because the system is far too dynamic to be able to do so.

Therefore, the simple answer is for us to clean up our act either way (and taxation is NOT the answer), as well as learning to work within mother nature rather than trying to fight against it... and learn to adapt accordingly.

This planet has never promised us an easy ride, so why the hell are we expecting it to ??

It's time to stop with the manmade-global-warming-is-going-to-kill-us-in-50-years panic fear mongering crap.


The problem is a lot of people who still "believe" in AGW will not see it that way, and the elites are on their part because it is exactly what they want.

Look at the temperature data that the Hadley Center for Climate Change tampered with from Russia. They took out all the data from stations that were not in cities because that data would tell us the real temperatures. Instead what they kept and use, the same for other areas, is the temperature data from stations "within city limits" and with the heat island effect plus the fact that we can't track the raw temperature from many areas because CRU "deleted that raw data", so we don't even have many ways to check their research.

However, there have been scientists who have noticed this "tampering of data". Many of them have come forward and even explained that the "data is being manipulated", and despite all the lies that the main AGW scientist proponents have been caught in we still have a lot of people believing their lies.

The AGW scientists have been using many other "tricks" to get people into thinking "anthropogenic CO2 and mankind is to blame for Climate Change". There are a lot of things mankind has done which we do need to fix, but CO2 is not one of them.

The main scientist proponents of AGW, and the world elites, want to blame CO2 because that way they can push for their "political agendas". But they won't really do anything about the radiation leak from Fukushima, which should have been completely cemented over since day one. They won't do anything about the "coreexit and oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico. They won't do a thing about the plastic island in the Pacific which could be a source of recycling for plastic.

They won't really move a finger for the "real problems" which we should be trying to fix, instead they have given people a scapegoat, something else they can put the blame on to push people into accepting their One World Government that "will combat climate change among other things" and the draconian laws which only purpose is to control every aspect of people's lives.

By going after anthropogenic CO2 they can in fact blame not only human activity but all men and women. They can blame "overpopulation" which can be solved without trying to impose draconian laws, or population control and the depopulation they want to undertake and have been doing for decades in third world countries. Now they want to bring these policies and plans into the industrialized world, and CO2 is their way to get their plans accomplished.

You have to wonder how in the world people think that "oil companies" will pay for the elites going after CO2. Heck, look at what happened with BP and the Golf of Mexico spill... They barely paid anything to fix it, instead they hid the majority of the oil that was spilled by releasing "coreexit". A chemical which made the oil spill worse and is to blame for much of sea life in the Gulf of Mexico dying...

Those who believe in "AGW" do tell us, is BP still trying to clean what they did?... Were ANY of the people really in charge of BP get sent to jail? I am talking about those who sanctioned the use of coreexit to make the majority of the oil denser which made it sink to the bottom of the gulf and killed most of the sea life at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico in the areas affected??...

IF the world leaders did not do anything to get these people to really clean up their act, and did not send to jail whomever sanctioned the use of coreexit. How in the world do you think that the taxes on CO2, and the plans and policies they want to implement on CO2 will affect these companies that much?... They won't affect them, but they will affect every one of us, the regular people, including those who to this day are cheering for these taxes, and laws on CO2.

edit on 21-9-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 03:19 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

Sorry about the delay in reply. Been ill.

I think you might be referring to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. The current AMO, iirc, is in a warming phase--not cooling. The last cooling phase ended in the 1990's. Here's some papers on the AMO and its effects, particularly in regards to rainfall.

According to the second paper from 2013, the current circumstance in regards to the AMO and ENSO are being intensified by anthropogenic warming.

Although the mega-ENSO and AMO are primary sources of the interdecadal variations of the NHSM, one cannot rule out the influence of the global warming. Fig. 3 shows that the NH 2-m air temperature has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere (SH) counterpart by 0.36 °C over the past 32 y. The NHSM intensity is significantly linked to the hemispheric thermal contrast (HTC) defined by the 2-m air temperature difference between the NH (0°–60°N) and Southern Hemisphere (60°S–0°) (r = 0.63; Fig. 4C). Dynamically, the enhanced hemispheric thermal contrast can generate meridional pressure gradients that drive low-level cross-equatorial flows from the SH to the NH (Fig. 2C) and converge into the NHSM trough regions. We note that the “NH warming faster than the SH” or “warm NH–cold SH” pattern is a characteristic of the projected warming under increasing greenhouse gases forcing.

In short, we do have plenty of patterns of variability but they are being tweaked by what we have essentially done. Totally agree that we're much more technologically equipped monkeys than we were the last time we encountered extreme changes. However, the big concern that I have is how little we know of what is going to occur in terms of unforeseen consequences. All the technology in the world isn't going to help if we're blindsided completely.

**For the sake of full disclosure in terms of potential conflicts of interest, I was originally intending on working for the US Forestry Dept until I was struck down by illness. I ended up working, instead, within the oil industry in its midstream and downstream branches.
edit on 25/9/14 by WhiteAlice because: added **

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in