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.

 

Global Warming Isn't Causing California Drought? Report Triggers Storm

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
its good to see that not all government agencies scientist blame global warming, opps i mean climate change for everything that is a natural occurrence.


Natural conditions, not human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases, are the driving force behind California's three-year dry spell, scientists on a federal task force concluded Monday. But the report came under fire from some experts who said it downplayed other factors that have humanity's fingerprints on them.


but there are still those that get their bread and butter from it, gonna call foul and say they are wrong.
here is just one.


But critics included Michael Mann, director of Penn State's Earth Science Center. He quickly penned a piece online, calling the report "deeply flawed" because of how it interpreted ocean and Arctic sea ice data, and focused on rainfall while paying "only the slightest lip service" to record warm temperatures in California.


i like what the NOAA guy said,

"The precipitation was the essence of this drought," added Hoerling. "Farmers were praying for rain, not cooler temperatures."



now this to be fair the NOAA study didn't dismiss global warming, just said that the drought was not caused by it.
this will be a never ending debate and there will be those that you can lead to water but can't make them drink.

if you think back obama and many others in the government came right out and said it was global warming causing the drought.
Obama On California Drought: Climate Change Threatens The Nation

but even back in feb when he said this people were saying it's natural.
Don’t Blame Climate Change for the California Drought

but as always government has to milk that cash cow.
edit on 9-12-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I think for some Global Warming or the newer Climate Change idea puts people somewhat at ease. Nobody wants to consider another ice age or the end of this era...so folks hang on to the idea that we can stop this change..

Obviously the toxins we are putting in the sky does not help but eventually we will run into another ice age or the someone's going to pull the plug on the sun...



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The way I see global warming is that it is a real effect of human activity. However, the earth would recover very quickly from this if the activity was reduced or stopped. The excess heat and carbon dioxide would dissipate. Look how quickly the earth loses heat related to seasons and even day or night. That is how quickly.

Obviously human activity is not going to just stop so it is about moving towards less carbon dioxide being released as a result of industrial and domestic activity.

My biggest concern is the effect of automobiles and the very big industries, petro chemical, nuclear, power stations, etc. Plastic is also a most hazardous polluter.

I wish there was a real drive to getting us all free of what harms the earth and us. I do worry about all the carbon hype though. What concerns me that it is more appealing to the legislators because of revenue opportunities (carbon tax) than an altruistic policy towards industrial and domestic sustainability.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco




Obviously the toxins we are putting in the sky does not help


i agree, co2 and other gases may indeed cause some temp increase, but i've seen the weather/ (climate) change several times in my life. with drought, heat, and freezing cold here in fl.
all of that was before or during the so called global warming / climate change.

i got my own suspicions about what is or has caused it, i dare not say anything about because i would be called every name out there. i'll just say that it has been proven a couple of times that it had effects on the earths climate.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
what i never understood is why is there a divide between people that believe in global warming and people that don't, i mean at the end of the day, who cares if it's man made or not?
shouldn't we all be able to agree that a cleaner lifestyle means a healthier one?
can't we agree that investing on stuff that pollutes less means cleaner air, tastier and more abundant food, and yeah, maybe more bearable temperatures?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
what i never understood is why is there a divide between people that believe in global warming and people that don't, i mean at the end of the day, who cares if it's man made or not?
shouldn't we all be able to agree that a cleaner lifestyle means a healthier one?
can't we agree that investing on stuff that pollutes less means cleaner air, tastier and more abundant food, and yeah, maybe more bearable temperatures?


Sure, but you see there is this "Carbon Credit Scam" that Wall Street and Politicians want to enforce on us so they can make Billions trading carbon credits and this system really doesn't do anything environmental wise other than force you to use less as it artificially raises the cost of everything on the masses so that the traders and politicians can get richer. Kind of like wealth redistribution from the little guy to the elites on a very large scale.

I don't like pollution either but I like paying more for everything so the elite can make more money even less, especially since it has been proven that carbon credits do not reduce carbon



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

some climate scientists say that co2 dissipation would take a very long time, and say that some( about 25%) of it will last forever. i kinda think that it's like a 50/50 thing.

i've read reports that says the the different processes that naturally absorb co2, such as the ocean or rock weathering take hundreds of years to remove the gases.

one of the problems i think can be rectified is deforestation, if clear cutting was stopped and trees replanted that would do a lot to help the natural processes. but then you got those out there that say that trees wouldn't soak enough to make a difference. well i think it would, just look at the amazon, how many years / centuries did it stand before clear cutting started, or other area where land is cleared for timber, farming, or civilization such as towns cities, or homes.

no doubt we need other alternative fuels, but to completely do away with fossils fuels is just plain crazy.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Climate is one big engine over time, if we humans are changing climate which IMO is obvious we do, it affects everything, you can't divide it into, this is natural, this is human caused, it's all connected all over the planet.

Nature will do it's thing as all ways, but remember humans are part of nature, so in reality everything is natural.

What we are doing is offsetting the natural balance, and it will accelerate the more we offset it but only to a certain level as nature of course will try to rebalance.

It is kind of easy to understand, there really are no mystery to it.

The carbon tax is spent on reducing co2 emission and expand on green energy, not filling selected peoples pockets as many people believe, though it's a very slow process and IMO opinion an impossible fight in short time if you look at how fast climate is changing.

It's not only up to governments and big companies to make a change, it's up to every living human being living under the governments, and driving the economy of the big companies.

For exsample, they pump the oil, you spend the oil, they make the wooden furnitures you spend the wooden furnitures and so on, it's one big machine driven by YOU....
edit on 9-12-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
It's just cyclical stuff ... but weather responds to human consciousness, so some of what we are seeing has our stamp of approval on it.

Things are changing ... water redistribution is here. CA and TX are drying up.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
what i never understood is why is there a divide between people that believe in global warming and people that don't, i mean at the end of the day, who cares if it's man made or not?
shouldn't we all be able to agree that a cleaner lifestyle means a healthier one?
can't we agree that investing on stuff that pollutes less means cleaner air, tastier and more abundant food, and yeah, maybe more bearable temperatures?



If you want more food, CO2 content will have to go up in the atmosphere, green house growers use methane burners inside their greenhouses to increase yield, the burners produce CO2, which is what plants need to grow, and they expel oxygen, which we need. Then we expel CO2, what the plants need.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I feel it does really come down to us. We think we can rule over nature. We think it's ok to mess with the natural flow of rivers. We build ports at every junction of river and sea. We dry up Lagoons, kill the plant life, and build new buildings with out thought of what damage it will cause up stream. We have it backwards, the oceans do not feed our freshwater supplies, our rivers feed the oceans. When we change the junction and kill the Lagoons, the water gets brackish and the salt kills any chance of plant recovery. The Lagoons are where the rain makes it's home, they are where the exchange occurs and rain begins it's journey inland. These places are all linked together, so we kill a Lagoon we pay with less rain and the death of that ecosystem meet in the middle. Much like burning a candle from both ends.

We have to get past the idea that new construction means progress. We used to build things to last. Now EVERYTHING is disposable. We have to get a new car every 3 to 5 years, a new "phone" every year. Consume Consume Consume, without thought of the impact. Eff the impact, if we break it we can fix it, we are Human's and rule the Earth, we can do anything!



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I wouldn't put any of their weather technology, from cloud seeding to scalar wave tech, off the list of culprits. To me they're taking control of water and creating scarsity. But, on the idea of bigger cycle. The weather is beyond strange lately.

We don't get -18 in the south interior of BC, its a soft fruit and vineyard region, that gets -6 on average in January and many years we don't see snow until just before Christmas. However we had those two short term cold spells, the fog rolled in first and I consider that fog to be silver nitrate type, it felt artificial, and then the trees cast medium blue shadows on the hill near us, never seen that color of shadow in my life, yet it was there day after day. As if there was silver in that snow, or metals.

Now, that goes away and we are having 7 above temperatures at 4 am???/

First I was prepared to simply be very angry at the elites using technology against people and thought it was agenda 21, and destroying our food growing regions. And I'm still on that side.

But its actually scarey to suddenly leap into unnaturally warm.

Don't know what is happening. Is it a pole shift? Is earth turning a little bit? What is going on?



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: wastedown

most of your post i can agree with as far as rivers, but when you start talking about lagoons drying up or being to salty i have to wonder a bit. if that is the case how do you explain salt water marshes. there is abundant plant life in those and are thriving.
true there are some that have been effected by pollution and man made diversions, yet many of these have adapted and continue to thrive.




We have to get past the idea that new construction means progress. We used to build things to last. Now EVERYTHING is disposable. We have to get a new car every 3 to 5 years, a new "phone" every year. Consume Consume Consume, without thought of the impact. Eff the impact, if we break it we can fix it, we are Human's and rule the Earth, we can do anything!


this i have seen first hand. i have been a industrial/ commercial repair tech/ electrician for the past 30 years. we use to joke about how things were getting cheaper when i had been doing it for about 5 years. you could tell the age of something by how well it was engineered, built, lasted and the way it stood up to use.

a example are the old u frame electric motors, we would get some that has been in service for 20,30,+ plus years and only came in for minor repairs. and newer ones that were less than five failed completely. as the science changed into what was suppose to be more efficient use of electricity the frame sizes were standardized and engineers changed and the way made them and designs. for a while it was still freezable to repair them, but as time went on, the cost of materials, labor, vs. the cost of a new it got to the point you couldn't repair them economically, under a certain frame size and horsepower.

new is not always better, i always say if it ain't broke don't fix it.




edit on 9-12-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Unity_99

you actually mentioned two things that are part of my suspicions in why there is warming.
i will say that it is not the technology that i suspect.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Unity_99

I've seen what you say you saw when we get very fine smoke in the air from a forest fire far away. Something is in the air, it could be some metal gases like methyl mercury or something. If methyl mercury is high in the air, sound travels through the air better, things would sound louder. I would guess that other metals can be floating around in the air too.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

While I agree with your sentiment. One side of this debate wants to tax the hell out of the other.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Hard to evaluate your source when there is no link to it.



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

What happened upstream from those that adapted?

Sure life seems to find a way, but it is new life not indigenious to the area, it is a new type of fish that takes over, the whole thing is new, a new path for the river, a new power plant for the people. Well, Suprise! You get a new drought, you get a whole new climate, you get a whole new ecosystem. You can't have a New everything and expect things to stay the same.

I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right at all. Simply expanding on the idea from my point of view, which in no way invalidates yours.
edit on 9-12-2014 by wastedown because: indigent lmfao



posted on Dec, 9 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

sorry about that i didn't even catch that.
here is the NBC news report that i quoted from.

Global Warming Isn't Causing California Drought? Report Triggers Storm

there is a link there that reads,"release the report, that takes you to the NOAA site. at the bottom of the page is a link to the report.
here is that link.

Causes and Predictability of the 2011 to 2014 California Drought



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockn82
a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

While I agree with your sentiment. One side of this debate wants to tax the hell out of the other.

And there is the crux of the issue.

It isn't about people not believing the Earth is getting hotter - it's about taxes.

And because people don't want to pay more taxes, they refuse to believe the science supporting the Earth getting hotter (some give in on that but say humans ain't doing it).



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join