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.

 

Study links changing winds to warming in Pacific (not CO2)

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Yet another study is showing some evidence of warming ocean temperatures not because of those dreaded greenhouse gases like CO2.

This one says it's wind patterns of all things.

Since the vast majority of the CO2 craze is all about money, these new thoughts would be "anti-cash-in" and therefore it must be deluded and wrong.

Let's see who can "disprove" this one.....



A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.

The study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.



Study links changing winds to warming in Pacific

CO2.Burp.Carbon.Credit







posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
So they still have a good area to cover.


Changes in one area cause changes everywhere else. Everything is connected, and everything influences everything else.

For example, rain heats the atmosphere. The warm air rises, creating wind. Wind drives ocean currents. Currents help determine where phytoplankton live. Phytoplankton help determine where clouds are formed. Clouds influences where the atmosphere is heated. Heating determines where the ocean evaporates, and the amount of evaporation.


Climate will always be 100% climate.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I still don't see how co2 not being the SOLE factor in climate means we should trash the world with zero regard for future generations.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
I still don't see how co2 not being the SOLE factor in climate means we should trash the world with zero regard for future generations.


Nobody says destroy the planet.
But putting a tax on carbon just adds to the amount of money it takes to survive. All the while doing absolutely nothing about carbon emissions.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
I still don't see how co2 not being the SOLE factor in climate means we should trash the world with zero regard for future generations.


But what if "climate change" is 100% due to natural Earth change?



I think any "excess" (if any) CO2 is not a contributing factor.

The "Earth" takes it back and uses it naturally.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
I still don't see how co2 not being the SOLE factor in climate means we should trash the world with zero regard for future generations.


Except that every policy being implemented deal mainly with CO2 and CO2 sequestration, which will surely condemn future generations since plants and trees require CO2 and it is a known fact that with HIGHER levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present all harvests worldwide would increase, and all plants and trees would need less water which means more water and food for humans and animals.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
It seems to me like debating the cause of climate change is something like holding a conference on a sinking ship to arrive at an agreement as to why the ship is sinking.

If we come up with rules and policies that encourage "climate-proof" infrastructure and industry, and enforce them on new projects only, over a relatively short time (relative to what the planet considers a long time, anyway), we will ensure our ongoing prosperity on this planet, and in all probability, reduce the amount of damage we inflict on the planet by working to tune our production with the planet's.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Somewhere, loon Robert F. Kennedy is curled-up in a corner shaking and crying. lol

I'm all for corporations being cleaner. I'm all for trying to make the world a cleaner place, but most of this is about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
I still don't see how co2 not being the SOLE factor in climate means we should trash the world with zero regard for future generations.


CO2 is exhaled by all breathing animals. So unless you kill of either most of the humans or most of the animals you will not reduce CO2. The answer would be to plant more trees and other plants that take in CO2 and put out Oxygen.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

From your link, not that anyone reads anything posted here!!


It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change.

They pointed out that the study sees a correlation but did not do the rigorous statistical and computer analysis to show that the cause of the wind changes were natural - the kind of analysis done when scientists attribute weather extremes to global warming.

"This may say more about the state of climate modeling than it says about causes of warming in the Pacific Northwest," Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, said in an email. "The authors ... have not established the causes of these atmospheric pressure variations. Thus, claims that the observed temperature increases are due primarily to `natural' processes are suspect and premature, at best."

AP

The claim made that the rise in ocean temperature was caused by wind, has not been proven. They didn't go through the same science that climate scientist do, they just made up there conclusions without any evidence of what caused the wind to change!!!!

Climate change caused the winds to change!!!



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer
Plant more trees or depopulate 500,000,000 people?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: tavi45
I still don't see how co2 not being the SOLE factor in climate means we should trash the world with zero regard for future generations.


But what if "climate change" is 100% due to natural Earth change?



I think any "excess" (if any) CO2 is not a contributing factor.

The "Earth" takes it back and uses it naturally.




Back in Middle school, before Al Gore and the climate warming/change platform was even a twinkle in his wallet, in science our teacher waaaay back then talked of the Earth's changes from cool to hot over the thousands/millions of years and the shift of land masses as well as oceans rising/falling

Guess what???
It's from Mother Nature doing her thing, evolving from cycle to cycle over the millions of years, changing as time goes by
It had nothing to do with Mankind but all about Earth's natural evolving state

True, the industrial plants don't help but if you shut all plants down, it will never EVER stop the natural cycle of the earth's changes

Not sure what they teach in school now a days, but I miss teachers teaching about facts and not pushing special agendas


edit on 22-9-2014 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Fylgje

Only 500 million left after the slaughter.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
If it bears out to be true it doesn't change the FACT that increased CO2 is causing warmer global temperatures. It simply means maybe not the increased heat in California. Even if it was discovered tomorrow that humans pumping CO2 into the air didn't warm up anything one little bit, the planet is still warming for whatever reason, climate change is still happening and it's still going to cost us a lot to deal with it... what if in the process of adaptation we perfect solar or wind power or find a whole new energy source? Would that be a bad side effect? Nope.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

CO2 is exhaled by all breathing animals. So unless you kill of either most of the humans or most of the animals you will not reduce CO2.
Where do you suppose the CO2 that animals exhale comes from? The answer is plants. Plants turn CO2 from the atmosphere into food. Animals turn some of that food back into CO2 (and flesh, and poop). Carbon is recycled. It's balanced.

The trouble is, when we burn fossil fuels (carbon which was removed from the atmsphere million of years ago) that balance gets screwed up. There's too much CO2 to be recycled so it builds up.



The answer would be to plant more trees and other plants that take in CO2 and put out Oxygen.
There is no lack of oxygen and we can't plant enough trees to take care of the excess CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.

edit on 9/23/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join