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.

 

ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall




That's due to higher solar radiation being closer to the equator which in turn is warmer temperatures in that part of the globe causing daily rainfalls.
No. You know the Sahara is at the same latitude as the Caribbean, right?




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Phage

CO2 effect is saturated
"Each unit of CO2 you put into the atmosphere has less and less of a warming impact. Once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, additional input of CO2 will not really have any major impact. It's like putting insulation in your attic. They give a recommended amount and after that you can stack the insulation up to the roof and it's going to have no impact." (Marc Morano, as quoted by Steve Eliot)

CO2 also has a cooling effect as well. Good example is the time of dinosaurs, 5x the amount of CO2 and not much warmer temps.

CO2 actually has many effects on the planet, not JUST warming link


Thank you I was attempting to state that before but you managed to state this much more elequently.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
Who is Marc Morano?
In any case, he doesn't have the faintest idea of what radiative forcing means. It has nothing to do with "insulation."




edit on 6/14/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: libertytoall




That's due to higher solar radiation being closer to the equator which in turn is warmer temperatures in that part of the globe causing daily rainfalls.
No. You know the Sahara is at the same latitude as the Caribbean, right?


That was a terrible example. The reason the Sahara has no rainfall is because it has no vegitation, and sand acts as a thermal protective layer from any soil that may lie beneath the sandy surface. What happens is there is no moisture for the heat to evaporate dissalowing any chance of forming moisture or rain clouds. If the sahara was a forest it would rain every single day.
edit on 14-6-2015 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I agree with you 100% on that. I don't disagree that the climate is changing, and that man can have an effect on the environment. For me it has always been a fight against disinformation, and the debate has been on what part man truly plays.

The biggest red flag for me was when people started claiming the debate was over. Science has always been the complete opposite of that. Nobody should ever be put down for there opinion, let alone be jailed for it.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall




If the sahara was a forest it would rain every single day.

The Sahara has not always been a desert. Why is it now?

But tell me, how much rain does the Pacific Northwest get? It's not equatorial, is it?

edit on 6/14/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
Who is Marc Morano?
, he doesn't have the faintest idea of what radiative forcing means.




so sea level and stratosphere level CO2 acts the same?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The pacific northwest has a strange weather pattern that sweeps warm air from the pacific over the northwest. It accounts for it's large rainfall and also causes cities like Walla Walla, WA to retain an average temp of 55-65 degrees year round even in winter, when you would think they'd be frozen in.

edit on 14-6-2015 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall

That's the jet stream
edit on 14-6-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99
Yup. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation then bumps into some other molecule and transfers the energy to it or re-radiates the energy (as infrared). That re-radiated energy is then absorbed by another molecule.

The "difference" is, that the higher into to the atmosphere the energy gets the more likely the chances are that it will escape into space (because of the lower density). But overall, the more CO2 there is, the less likely that will happen. The more likely that the energy will be retained.

The problem isn't the "heat" that CO2 absorbs, the problem is that it absorbs infrared radiation. For a little while. The problem is, where does that infrared radiation go?

Think about it like flipping a coin. There is a 50% chance that a given CO2 molecule will re-emit infrared radiation into space instead of back to Earth. (above the horizon or below it). Let's say we don't have any coins. No CO2 in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold.

Now let's add one "coin" worth of CO2. What happens? 50% chance that you'll get "tails". Earth gets warmer because the amount of radiation leaving is no longer the same as the amount of radiation incoming. Half of it is coming back to the surface.

Now let's add another "coin". What happens? With 2 coins the odds are 75% that you'll get at least one tail. Earth gets warmer still.

With 3 coins the odds are 87% that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer still.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you say, more will also be re-emitted upward. But more cannot be re-emitted upward. To understand why, go back to the no coin situation. The amount of escaping radiation cannot increase beyond 100% but the amount of returning radiation can increase from 0% and does. When 100% of the energy escapes, its cold. When 90% escapes it's a bit warmer. When 75% escapes it's warmer still. When the balance (where ever it may be) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Increasing GHGs is one thing that changes the balance. Increasing GHGs means that more infrared radiation stays in the atmosphere and less leaves. The concept is called radiative forcing, not heat absorption.

Ever notice how on an overcast night it is often warmer than on a clear night? That's because the clouds are reflecting infrared radiation back to the surface. Same principle except that clouds are a bit more directional than CO2 molecules.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall




The pacific northwest has a strange weather pattern that sweeps warm air from the pacific over the northwest.

No it doesn't. The entire west coast has prevailing westerly winds.
edit on 6/14/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: libertytoall

That's the jet stream


Exactly so not all rules are absolute when it comes to the environment. If there was no jetstream in the pacific northwest, it would not experience the same rainfall and warm temps. But as for the general way the environment works it does not support the doom and gloom of the runaway warming nor the blame on humans for ruining the environment.
edit on 14-6-2015 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall

Why is the science that shows that climate change is not happening not under the same scrutiny?

Is that 'science' raw and unmanipulated by those with an agenda?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

That's the jet stream

No. The jet stream does not affect climate (or weather), it is created by weather.

Contrary to popular belief, the jet stream does not "cause" weather conditions of a certain type to occur. Its existence is instead the result of certain weather conditions (a large temperature contrast between two air masses).

www.weatherquestions.com...

edit on 6/14/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: libertytoall




The pacific northwest has a strange weather pattern that sweeps warm air from the pacific over the northwest.

No it doesn't. The entire west coast has prevailing westerly winds.


...Like the person before said it's the jetstream. www.sciencedaily.com...

Well as you stated then there is a reason for the warm air over the pacific northwest but you are not going to convince me it's caused by global warming.

edit on 14-6-2015 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall




...Like the person before said it's the jetstream.

Like I said. No, it isn't.
You said the Caribbean gets a lot of rain because of its latitude. That is incorrect.


edit on 6/14/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: libertytoall




...Like the person before said it's the jetstream.

Like I said. No, it isn't.
You said the Caribbean gets a lot of rain because of its latitude. That is incorrect.



It's not incorrect.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It depends on how the coin is being flipped...is it the same person imparting the chance onto each flip? Does each flip have the same height, velocity, angle, etc...?

How many other variables are involved in said "coin flip"? Beyond that, what other impact does the coin flip have on other variables that control the climate?

Using Physics to analyze the argument that CO2 is the leading cause of climate change is the easiest way to understand that it isn't.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: libertytoall


It's not incorrect.

Yes it is. The Caribbean owes its rainfall patterns to its climate regime, just as the Pacific Northwest does. Just as the Sahara does.
Global warming will alter those regimes.

edit on 6/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3



It depends on how the coin is being flipped...is it the same person imparting the chance onto each flip? Does each flip have the same height, velocity, angle, etc...?

No, it doesn't. The odds are the same. Do you think it matters who flips the coin? The odds are different if I do? What are my odds of getting heads vs yours?


edit on 6/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join