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.

 

Rapidly Warming Oceans Set to Release Heat Into the Atmosphere

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

Lol here in the UK East coast up north lol its freezing the water in summer and even colder in winter . I believe our earth always changes through the millions of years it allways has and allways will .when things warm up ill get my shorts and flip flops on ...and look up to our lovely star and say Arrrrrr r r r r r.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   
This world was here millions of years before us. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, ice ages, impacts from asteroids, and deluges that have swallowed the entire earth. We need to save our own stupid @$$es, not the earth. The earth will be here long after we are gone and will repair itself in time even from total extinction from nuclear strikes...yes that might take longer, but the earth will always survive. No amount of plastic bags or carbon footprints can compare to what the earth has already suffered from, and recovered from. This whole scare tactic from government is only so they can blame US for the current damage, so they can start charging us credits just because we breathe or fart. This is all just ridiculous. If people looked outside of the paradigm of what the government creates for them, they would know that it is the government who is to blame, and they need to pay for any damages, as they were the ones elected to do something ...and they did nothing but fill their pockets. Now they want to fill their pockets further by reversing everything and making us pay for the clean up of their mess. Its all just a game, and they win every time because stupid people fall for this crap.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician


This world was here millions of years before us. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, ice ages, impacts from asteroids, and deluges that have swallowed the entire earth. We need to save our own stupid @$$es, not the earth. The earth will be here long after we are gone and will repair itself in time even from total extinction from nuclear strikes...yes that might take longer, but the earth will always survive. ....


Well said. It's all about matter, isn't it? Matter can't be made or unmade - it just changes form. ...So we should not take it for granted that our planet will always be able to sustain our form of life, or always be here no matter what we do. Schtuff happens. And sometimes, humans make schtuff happen.









edit on 6/1/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Seems to me humans have been trying to "stop" making schtuff happen for many years now, just to have their patents bogh up by the elites to suppress. Humans are not the problem...those elite demons are.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Fortunately, science does not work by consensus (how long ago was the consensus that the world was flat??) but rather by the scientific method.

It is very clear, if one actually examines it, that climatologists do not (NOT) have an adequate understanding of climate to make the pronouncements they often do.

Their models (hypotheses) have not been accurate predictors failing to predict virtually every aspect of climate over the last 20 or so years that these models have been used to make predictions regarding climate change.

By definition of the scientific method, their hypotheses are incorrect and fail to rise to the level of hypotheses let alone theory. Therefore, also by definition, this means they must return to the drawing board and come up with new hypotheses, which will, again, be tested against natural phenomena to determine if the hypotheses are closer to being correct, or not.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
To reply to the OP:

In the past, cycles of global cooling and global warming were governed by astronomic cycles (see Milankovitch cycles) with levels of co2 playing extremely minor roles.

As evidence, there was an ice age that began while co2 levels were up in the range of 4800ppm. This is 12 times our current approx level of 400ppm. Interglacial periods normally begin with co2 levels at minimums...the rise of co2 lags behind temperature increases by 200-1400 years depending on whose research you wish to favor. Global cooling (leading to glaciation) always kicks in once temperatures have reached high levels (and co2 levels are close to maximum as well). 4 of the last 5 periods of global warming saw peak temps at higher levels than what we see today. The remaining 1 reached a peak that was quite close to where we are now, globally.

I would also pose this question: Why should we be so concerned when man's contribution to the greenhouse effect is a mere (approx) 0.25%? 95% of the Greenhouse effect is water vapor. Most of the remaining 5% is co2. Man (compared to natural sources) contributes approx 5% of all co2 produced yearly. Multiply approx 5% times almost 5% and you get what man's part in the greenhouse effect is.

Given this, and given that Milankovitch cycles trump co2 levels every time, historically speaking, then why should we get hysterical about man's co2 production? It's not like co2 is a pollutant...it's necessary for life to exist. When you look at periods of earth's history which featured the most successful, most diverse, forms of life you find co2 levels that are very much higher than what we see today.

When you consider that the period which nearly wiped man out was the last glacial period and not an interglacial period, I have to wonder "What is all hype for?"

I am one who firmly believes that we (man) should be good stewards of this earth. Of this there is no doubt, in my mind. At the same time, I find the current hysteria about climate change (something which has been constant since we (earth) first accumulated an atmosphere) to be .... more political than scientific. The science used to promote AGW et al. is highly suspicious at best, and criminally false at worst.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Hope you know I do agree. Down with the elite. Maybe tax the suckers as a first step.


S&



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Water holds heat very well, so we would expect it to lose its heat last.

Do you know what I see? I see a cooling planet.

The atmosphere is losing/has lost a lot of heat, so the oceans are now bleeding off their excess heat. We are in the last years of the warmth we have been enjoying. So go out and buy your parkas because once the extra heat in the oceans is done bleeding out ... hello, years of colder than normal weather during which the scientists will all start to scream at us about how we need to be taxed to prevent the coming ice age again.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There are a number of 60+/- year ocean cycles, and right now they are all on the downswing (temperature-wise).


appinsys.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Not only that but the increasing evidence for a low solar cycle for decades to come. Add them together and you have cooling planet, but first all the heat built up in the oceans has to finish bleeding out. When it does we should really start to see cold. We're only just getting a taste of it these past couple of years.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bbracken677

Not only that but the increasing evidence for a low solar cycle for decades to come. Add them together and you have cooling planet, but first all the heat built up in the oceans has to finish bleeding out. When it does we should really start to see cold. We're only just getting a taste of it these past couple of years.



fyi



2014 Was Officially the Hottest Year on Record

And all 10 of the hottest years on record have come after 1998








edit on 8/1/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

And this proves that it is Man's fault how?

I have illustrated multiple times how interglacial periods work... global warming until a maximum temp is reached, followed by global cooling. In 4 of the last 5 interglacial periods maximum temps reached were 2-3 degrees centigrade higher than what we see today.

Your link fails to provide any data whatsoever, so I offer the following website that illustrates perfectly the global warming of the last approx 50 years.

lwww.columbia.edu...


Having a problem with links today...here is another if the above does not work as expected:
NASA


edit on 8-1-2015 by bbracken677 because: wrong link posted

edit on 8-1-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2015 by bbracken677 because: link challenged, apparently



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

And we've only been keeping those records for how long compared to all the years the earth has been around? We know the world has been warmer on average than it is today, and we know it's been colder too. Climate changes. That's what it does. That's why it's one of the big drives of evolutionary processes. But hey! Let's try to stop that.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

We actually cannot, barring extremes like massive nuclear war...

We could pump co2 into the atmosphere until the cows came home and we could not prevent the next round of global cooling. An Ice Age began at 4800ppm co2 levels...our 400ppm currently would certainly not prevent the onset of global cooling.

Global warming is natural and happens during an interglacial until global cooling kicks in. Astronomic cycles control this, not the greenhouse effect. Those who would believe differently are simply ignorant of the information....information I might add that is freely available from virtually any research paper, virtually any geologic website which deals with the subject.

Co2 is necessary for life, it is not a pollutant.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Yes, but think of the revenue! They can tax us simply for living and breathing because it's the one thing we can't avoid doing without dying ...




posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Really makes me laugh how people will point at any graph, showing temperature rise, and point towards human activity as if correlation equals causation.

There was a pause in the global warming trend back in the 60s, lasting until the mid 70s. I was first married in 1976. That marriage lasted until the turn of the century. Temperaturs rose globally during that same period....so I suppose my marriage was responsible for global warming during that period.

Correlation does not, indeed, equal causation. Just because industrialization began at roughly the same time a period of warming picked back up (merely continuing the warming which has occurred since the end of the last glacial period, but heck, we cant discuss prior warming since man was obviously not contributing the co2 levels that he can be blamed for after the onset of industrialization) does not mean said industrialization was responsible for the increase in temperatures.

If that is the case, then what is the explanation for the sum total of the global warming that took place since the last period of glaciation?


Let me point out, once again, that man contributes rougly 5% of the total co2 produced globally each year. Nature produces the remaining 95%. Of the greenhouse effect, co2 produces roughly 5% of that...water vapor being the balance of 95%.

Ergo, man contributes one quarter of one percet (.05 x .05 = .0025. Or 0.25% of the greenhouse effect). This miniscule effect can hardly describe either the increase in temperatures during the last century, nor the increase in co2 levels of the last century.

In fact, when one examines pre-history, one finds that at the end of a period of glaciation co2 levels are at their lowest point and then 200-1400 years after global warming begins, co2 levels begin to rise. Likewise, at the onset of global cooling during the last 5 interglacial periods one finds that co2 levels are at their highest rougly 200-1400 years after the maximum temperature was reached followed by the global cooling trend.

In other words: co2 levels, the greenhouse effect, man's contribution to both are totally irrelevant. Milankovitch cycles trump co2 levels easily, given that the ice age began at co2 levels of 4800ppm....



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah...the real Inconvenient Truth is that Gore and his ilk are heavily invested in the industries that benefit from co2 hysteria.

Therein lies the rub...



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

this proves that it is Man's fault how?


I was responding to ketsuko's statement about how cold it is:


When it does we should really start to see cold. We're only just getting a taste of it these past couple of years.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Ah...I understand.

It's rather cold here in Dallas, a low of 15 tomorrow lol

But there is weather, and there is climate.

I think there is some confusion between comments regarding the last 15 years or so (depending on who and where you read about it). There are comments made regarding the total lack of warming over the last 15 years or so. This, of course, leads one to believe that global warming has stopped, or paused.

Another issue are remarks such as "10 of the hottest years on record were during the last 15 years". This leads one to surmise that global warming is on at a runaway pace. If we are at a peak of global warming over recent centuries then, yeah, of course that would be true, even IF temperatures were running fairly evenly over the 15 years in question. I am, of course assuming a sine wave situation and not a flat line which would be very unnatural.

The significant part being that global warming has "paused" which is a bit of an overstatement. The truth is that the rate of global warming has decreased significantly. Seems that a bit of both statements hold some truth, as well as some exageration. This is where both agenda's mislead the public at large.

I understand how some people can totally buy into the whole AGW thing... The problem I have is that history does not really support such a model, nor do the numbers presented regarding man's contribution to co2 levels add up. Again, I fear that agendas and exageration rule.

This particular interglacial period has been somewhat unique in that it has not followed the typical pattern of previous interglacials quite as...typically lol. We (man) have experienced more a more "temperate" interglacial than the previous 5. Why is this? I, for one, have no idea and frankly so much of the emphasis regarding climate study has been directed at AGW that this question has been totally lost in the mix. If you look at the temperature chart for the last 10,000 years you see a marked increase early on, followed by a very atypical decrease in average temps over the next 8000 years or so.

I feel it is an important one. One that has no agenda and if figured out, might inform us more about the future than the flailing currently going on.

It is clear that models are being constructed with faulty hypotheses as their basis. Several IPCC climatologists have openly declared that their models are flawed (kinda hard not to when their predictions are failing). It is my opinion that way too much weight is given to the effect of the greenhouse effect and, congruently the effect of co2 on climate.

It is clear that something unusual is going on this interglacial, however the unusual began long before man could possibly have affected climate in any way. To blame the last 100 years on AGW is just plain facile in my book.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Ah yes, weather. Sitting here in Winterpeg unable to walk outside because the deep freeze makes my lungs seize. Hate it. Must get fresh air, exercise! ...That said, I have no doubt we're in a warming period - and yes, it might just flip into a cooling period.

I also happen to think our Sun is going through an 'unstable' period, and releasing copious amounts of radiation (at least) on occasion - which certainly has an effect on our climate, weather, health and everything else. Then there's that pesky black hole in our Milky Way neighborhood - and I doubt anyone's being honest about its gamma ray bursts either.


....the Milky Way Galaxy, in which we are all floating, has a black hole with a mass 4.5 million times bigger than that of our sun at its very center.


Gamma Ray Bursts Travel Faster Than Speed of Light


Gamma Ray Burst Animation


Never mind our atmosphere and heliosphere and what might come at us from outside our little bubbles, the universe is a big place. We are all connected. No doubt. And everything really does affect everything else. No reason, at all, to assume human industrial activities have no impact on our planet's systems and cycles. No doubt they do.

Forget direct cause-and-effect - we need systems analysis and chaos theory here. And we need to minimize our footprint and stop mucking up the works and complicating already complicated and precariously balanced systems.



imho
edit on 9/1/15 by soficrow because: format



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join