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.

 

Another Possible Antarctic shelf breaking off?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


I thought earth's name was earth.

Yup. Dirt.
We live on dirt.




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Well, I don't hate Jewish people or men so... yeah you are wrong. Neither of which have anything to do with either topics we've replied to each other in. So take your own advice, stfu and stick to the topic.

One of the phases of extinction between the Permian and Triassic eras was caused by runaway warming. But your argument isn't really grounded to begin with. It's the dramatic global temperature changes, whether to cold or to hot, triggered by some kind of cataclysm that caused a great deal of extinctions in Earth's past epochs.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick



Never once in Terra's( that is earth's name BTW) history has co2 at much higher concentrations than now wrecked the ecosystem.

Really? Everything changed quite dramatically when plants evolved that could turn that CO2 into oxygen. It really did sort of wreck things for the life that was around before that. But it turned out to be good for us.

But once again, that really doesn't have anything to do with what rising CO2 levels and their associated effects will have, and are having on us. Here. Now. And for the next couple of hundred years.


You are obviously right here!!

We cannot dispute the past it is as it was.

I don't see the need for the hyperbole here though.

It isn't even on par with past co2 levels.

Are you worried we will excede them?

What without any bs is your position?

I agree environmentalism is a good position.

I agree we should not be doing most of the ecological travesties that are ongoing.

But does the wanted AGW bs substantiate this?

Are you just playing the lesser of greater evils here?

If so I can understand.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

It isn't even on par with past co2 levels.

Are you worried we will excede them?
No. But then, the Sun is emitting more radiation now than it was then, when CO2 levels were higher than they are now.



What without any bs is your position?
Really? I've been too subtle for you? I think that the burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 levels which has increased radiative forcing which has, and will continue to increase temperatures. I think that the detrimental effects of this will be widespread. I think that my daughter's world will be far less pleasant than mine has been. I think that we have the potential, if not the will, to mitigate those effects. Both by planning for them and by slowing the rate of change by reducing the production of CO2.

Clear enough for you?


Are you just playing the lesser of greater evils here?
Evil has nothing to do with it. It's about science.

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero


1. A large volcano eruption or two can reset it all.
So...we can hope that Yosemite erupts and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere? What about oceanic acidification? Doesn't matter?


Different subject all together, just saying that volcanoes are basically the main force that cools the earth. Little ice age from 1350 to about 1850 was due to three very big volcano eruptions within a solar minimum. The 1600s to 1700s were brutally cold centuries, summer many time didn't come, the Hudson and the Thames river would freeze over allowing people to use them as ice bridges etc...

Now if Yosemite erupts then we have end game...


2. Large amount of ice build up on the south pole is not a good sign.


I meant the large buildup of sea ice, south pole was generalization, maybe not a good one... lol








edit on 17-5-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Different subject all together, just saying that volcanoes are basically the main force that cools the earth. L
In a very transitory sense yes. The cooling from Pinatubo lasted a few years.
Reduced insolation has a greater and longer term effect.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not quite true Phage....

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," said Richard Mewaldt of Caltech.
Link
"
Also....

"Observations made by NASA instruments onboard an Air Force satellite have shown that the boundary between the Earth’s upper atmosphere and space has moved to extraordinarily low altitudes
Link
"
Another interesting recent discovery is that the decay of some radioactive materials on earth is affected by sunspot activity which might impact the eaarths temperature core which in turn is impacting earths magnetic field.

link

I am guessing that the oceans have buffered a climate change for the last 10-15 years, its going to get drastically colder in coming years.

Winters coming.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Not quite true Phage....
Quite true. On the average cosmic ray intensity has not changed much. Unless you are saying that the 11 year solar cycle is what's causing warming. Are you?



I am guessing that the oceans have buffered a climate change for the last 10-15 years, its going to get drastically colder in coming years.
Interesting. I'm not sure what the claims about solar effects on radioactive decay have to do with climate (your link doesn't say anything about that) but you think the oceans suddenly decided to hang onto heat for some reason? Climatologist tend to agree (thus a "pause" in atmospheric warming) but the way it works isn't exactly clear. I mean, isolation hasn't changed much (except for a very slight decline) and cosmic ray activity has been showing a bit of a long term decline (with the exception of the solar minimum of 2008-2009). Not much overall since 1957 at least. But temperatures have been rising since then. That's a pretty interesting buffering effect. How does it work? What do you suppose has been preventing that heat from escaping to space for all that time?

Or is it that increase in cloud cover that suddenly caused the oceans to retain heat?


I guess a bit of cooling would be welcome, but I don't think counting on it is a good idea. Not based on the data.


edit on 5/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




"Observations made by NASA instruments onboard an Air Force satellite have shown that the boundary between the Earth’s upper atmosphere and space has moved to extraordinarily low altitudes


That's actually another tell-tale sign of greenhouse gas warming... troposphere warming while stratosphere cooling. If the extra heat were coming from above the stratosphere would be warming first instead it's contracting from cooling.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join