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.

 

This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

page: 12
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: KuzKuz

Sigh... That is a view of total square area. What is the problem is that the total VOLUME of the ice caps has severely decreased.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis


Data from new sensors, combined with older sources, are providing a more complete picture of ice thickness changes across the Arctic. In a recently published paper, R. Lindsay and A. Schweiger provide a longer-term view of ice thickness, compiling a variety of subsurface, aircraft, and satellite observations. They found that ice thickness over the central Arctic Ocean has declined from an average of 3.59 meters (11.78 feet) to only 1.25 meters (4.10 feet), a reduction of 65% over the period 1975 to 2012.


Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?


Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.

Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it makes up most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.

Over time, sea ice reflects the fast-changing circumstances of weather. It is driven principally by changes in surface temperature, forming and melting according to the seasons, the winds, cloud cover and ocean currents. In 2010, for example, sea ice extent recovered dramatically in March, only to melt again by May.

Sea-ice is subject to powerful short-term effects so while we can't conclude anything about the health of the ice from just a few years' data, an obvious trend emerges over the space of a decade or more, showing a decrease of about 5% of average sea-ice cover per decade.

edit on 8-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good! As a taxpayer I am happy to see at least some judicious use of my money rather than wasting it on crackpot theories which have gained "consensus" purely due to funding threats and shouting down of dissent.


If this kind of ignorance and science denial was not that sad, it would really be funny...

Just wait couple more major weather events, and once one of them effects you, then you will be first yelling - why we did not do something about it... or you will find some other excuse for this ignorance...

If all of them were not warning to you, what about current drought in California? You think it will get better?? Check where most of your vegetable comes from... make plans where you will get them from if this continues for bit longer...



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for supporting my point in case as its dated only till 2012 where one year after that it was suppose to be completely gone based on all the data sources your providing but since 2013 the caps have been growing.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: KuzKuz

Area =! Volume.

You fail at science. See me after class.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

california has plenty of water but they are mismanaging it over a SMELT. a fish that dont effect the environment hardly at all.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: KuzKuz

Read my second link about extent (area) and volume. The area IS increasing, but the total volume of ice is still decreasing.

Another article to read
The Arctic Sea Ice Problem Is Actually Worse — Not Better — Than We Thought



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

ice caps

Go and read. Since 2013 there has been increase in volume and thickness. Bad teacher needs a spanking



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: SuperFrog

california has plenty of water but they are mismanaging it over a SMELT. a fish that dont effect the environment hardly at all.


Can you provide evidence to your claim??


Year No. 4 of California's severe, long-term drought will be a turning point, because the state might not have enough water in the reservoirs to make it to next year, according to one NASA water expert.

Jay Famiglietti, NASA's senior water scientist, wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that the Golden State has depleted its water resources so much that it'll all be gone in about one year. He came to his conclusion by using NASA satellites to study maps of the San Joaquin and Sacramento river basins.

"We're not just up a creek without a paddle in California, we're losing the creek too," he wrote.

Source: www.weather.com...


For your info, snow that would help... well it's not there...

www.nbclosangeles.com...


edit on 8-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: Just to bold important part...



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is project based. Which means to me its not actual facts



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: KuzKuz
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

ice caps

Go and read. Since 2013 there has been increase in volume and thickness. Bad teacher needs a spanking


This is from that link that I originally supplied and you relinked:

After the 2014 September minimum, first-year ice expanded through the winter growth season and older ice was redistributed around the Arctic Ocean. Figure 5 shows that winds have compressed second-year ice towards the coast of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago. Old multi-year ice (4+ years old) drifted into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and spread out, with first-year ice forming between parcels of the older ice. Some of the multi-year ice (both second-year and older) drifted out of the Arctic through Fram Strait on its way to melting in the warm waters of the North Atlantic.

Overall, the area of second-year ice decreased by more than a third during the winter, while ice of four years and more declined by about 10%. In recent years, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas have seen substantial loss of ice during summer, even of the thicker, older ice.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: KuzKuz

You clearly don't care about "facts" anyways. You keep ignoring what I'm saying in order to substitute your own reality.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
"The data indicate that Arctic sea ice thickness in the spring of 2015 is about 25 centimeters (10 inches) thicker than in 2013. Ice more than 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) thick is found off the coast of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago, and scattered regions of 3-meter (10 feet) thick ice extend across the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Elsewhere, most of the ice is 1.5 to 2.0 meters (4.9 to 6.6 feet) thick, typical for first-year ice at the end of winter."

From the link posted ice caps in earlier reply



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
To me it more sounds like a pole shift if anything



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: KuzKuz

You aren't reading that carefully enough apparently. You are just looking at it in a vacuum, but if you compare that to the excerpt that I just linked, you'd see that what you just copied isn't as good as you think. For one, most of the thick ice seems to have floated into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. For one we have this:

In recent years, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas have seen substantial loss of ice during summer, even of the thicker, older ice.


So count on that ice to go away next year. Second we see that most of the thick ice has spread out and has been relinked by first-year ice (which will probably melt again).

Stop cherry picking data and read the whole page.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: KuzKuz
To me it more sounds like a pole shift if anything


Magnetic pole is moving anyway... but soon you might not know that, as soon as NASA moves its eyes form earth...

news.discovery.com...

What I find amusing in this topic is that some members in beginning of this thread mentioned global climate change as 'religion' in absence of better word for something bad. Kudos for using religion as defamatory term... Here, this is your future science book...


edit on 8-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As you stated "probably" which in my ears is uncertain and not a fact.

I see the facts that earth was going through a warm period but I'm not jumping onto the boat of we gotta spend billions to see what we can do. When its a proven fact that earth has gone through multiple ice ages. And I believe history will repeat its self and go through one again. So.... what's the big deal???



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradoxious
NASA needs to be living up to its name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If you're unfamiliar with the term "aeronautics", it quite literally means navigating air.

NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)... you know them right? They're one of many groups that can't even tell you if it'll rain in the next hour. THEY should be watching the oceans and atmosphere, not NASA.

From the wiki place:

Purpose and function
NOAA plays several specific roles in society, the benefits of which extend beyond the US economy and into the larger global community:
A Supplier of Environmental Information Products. NOAA supplies information to its customers and partners pertaining to the state of the oceans and the atmosphere. This is clearly manifest in the production of weather warnings and forecasts through the National Weather Service, but NOAA's information products extend to climate, ecosystems, and commerce as well.
A Provider of Environmental Stewardship Services. NOAA is also the steward of U.S. coastal and marine environments. In coordination with federal, state, local, tribal, and international authorities, NOAA manages the use of these environments, regulating fisheries and marine sanctuaries as well as protecting threatened and endangered marine species.
A Leader in Applied Scientific Research. NOAA is intended to be a source of accurate and objective scientific information in the four particular areas of national and global importance identified above: ecosystems, climate, weather and water, and commerce and transportation.
*emphasis added.




This. I totally agree on this. Weather and Climate are NOAAs babies, not NASA. NASA should be looking beyond our atmosphere, and focusing on space more. In fact, NASA might learn more about climate change looking at other planets, seeing how a few others are also experiencing climate changes of their own, trending warmer.

Normally, I tend to agree that the right has a ridiculous phobia of science, logic, and reason, but in the case of AGW (man-made global warming), they are at least, partly correct. I do believe the climate is changing, however, I still do not believe there is really enough evidence to declare it man made, and over the years, I've seen more to make me question those pushing AGW on the value of their models, the "science" behind the claims, and their own political agendas.

I am not against environmentalism. In fact, far from it. I believe the EPA exists for good reason, and I even think it is too lenient against environmental criminals. I believe if something something is threatening an ecosystem or the food/water supply, the government has a duty to step in and put a stop to, or regulate, the activity causing the threat before it causes permanent or long term harm. However, there are plenty of genuine (and scientifically backed) threats to the environment and humans that can and should be addressed. We do not need made up ones that divert resources, attention, and time from the real threats. Real threats like:

1. Water depletion and the irresponsible building and sprawling of huge desert metropolises (golf courses in the middle of the desert, hydroponic farming in water starved areas, ect)

2. Resource re-use and recycling. Less stuff in landfills or getting incinerated, less pollutants poisoning the air and streams we breathe, drink, and live in. Also, less plundering of raw natural resources, so less long term harm.

3. Air Pollution. Instead of obsessing over CO2 all the time, have we forgotten the host of actually toxic gasses that get released from fossil fuel, that create smog, acid rain, and bad air days? There are numerous reasons we need to look for alternatives to fossil fuels and none of them have anything to do with global warming.

4. Threats to different species of life. Drops in wild fish stocks due to unregulated over fishing, hunting and poaching of endangered animals, urban sprawl and deforestation destroying habitat, excessive exploitation of resources.

5. Threats from bio engineering. Threats from pesticides, herbicides, genetic engineering without proper cross contamination controls, effects from irresponsible farming.

I could go on and on. But not a single mention of global warming in any of it, though I'm sure AWG supporters will claim them all linked. I just hate people using manipulated BS posing as science and being used to implement changes that have less to do with saving the environment than taxation, social engineering, political control.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
If the liberal government wants to convince me that there is "man made, measurable damage being caused to our climate" (my more correct version of "climate change") then they can do the following. Take 1 trillion of the people's tax dollars that they have already collected and re-distribute it to the people that actually pay taxes. We the people will then be more careful with carbon emissions. Personally...I will drive less and watch other energy use.

But...unless the government doesn't give us the money so we may take action...then this is all BULL and just another left leaning government diving deeper into our pockets in their ever-going plan to take all we have and become "mommy and daddy" controlling us all.

So Obama...taking my deal?????



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Who in your mind actually pays taxes?
Does getting a refund mean you paid no taxes?

Also doubt ole barry is reading this, and if he was it wouldn't be his call alone
You think the current congress would allow such a vast amount of money to just be re-distributed out?

And of course it is only our 'liberal' gov that takes this stance, all over the rest of the world they agree with you I bet.
/sarcasm
edit on thFri, 08 May 2015 17:05:30 -0500America/Chicago520153080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I made a thread that received 0 traction at all lol but it goes to what is being discussed here energy independence and climate change..and from a country that was known for underdevelopment, starvation with eyes of potbellied kids filled with flies, well it seemed that Nation now have something to teach us about investing in renewable energy and battling climate change as a side effect.
Ethiopia emerges as a world leader on renewable energy:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
We are allowing B and C team nations to by pass us because of our greed and stupidity.
edit on 8-5-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join