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.

 

A Question For The Climate Skeptics

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: mc_squared
The denial is strong with this group. Oh well it is the same ole same ole.
What comments in this thread do you consider denialist and why?


If you can't figure that out on your own then me explaining it to you would be absolutely pointless.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Unless something unforeseeable occurs
... like water finding its way into the sub structure of the Earth ie caverns
.... or ice caps increasing.
Then sea level rises are it seems inevitable.
edit on 29-8-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo

edit on 29-8-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Here in finland, we had and are still having about the coldest summer in recorded history, so i can`t relate to the filthy lies of global warming, i am freezing my pinjatas off,

But anyhow, could the climate hold more water, if things heat up? so it would not affect seal levels?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: mc_squared
The denial is strong with this group. Oh well it is the same ole same ole.
What comments in this thread do you consider denialist and why?


If you can't figure that out on your own then me explaining it to you would be absolutely pointless.
Please, explain it to me. Why do you think people in this thread are denialists? For saying we "don't need to worry" and that these things "change naturally?"
edit on 29-8-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I'll post where I was going with this soon, just gathering some data first.

In the meantime if anyone else wants to address the OP directly - I thank you for your participation!

It's a simple question...




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Enderdog
a reply to: mc_squared

I don't think it will rise at any speed we need to be worried about.


This is the exact line that makes me shiver. At least you put don't "think" meaning we aren't sure. That is the case...we aren't sure...except the places in Bangladesh and other low lying countries getting wiped out. It is happening. I live on the coast myself and its getting more expensive to deal with surges.

Two things...more ice in the ocean can lead to levels rising..more heat means liquid expands.

It is happening and it is going to get worse and humans will be completely ok but it is going to cost a # load if we don't start planning now. Hell look at Katrina..New Orleans had 0 plans in place...but a city very close to it called Sidel or something did...that smaller city was well prepared and handled the disaster very well and its been viewed as a good starting blue print for city disaster scenarios.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

I have a plan for you.
Move inland.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
Another thread has got me contemplating this, so I thought I'd ask out loud:

If it was shown unequivocally that the world is indeed warming, but we have no idea where that warming is coming from - man, natural forces, trolling aliens using HAARP, whatever - would you accept that sea levels will rise with that warming?

Again, just to be clear - no definitive connection to man made causes here, I'm just asking if the planet is indeed warming, is it logical to deduce that sea levels will rise? e.g. because basic physics dictates that heat leads to thermal expansion of the oceans, melting ice on land pouring into the sea, etc - is this an acceptable conclusion?


Yes it is acceptable, that is what happens when an ice age ends, the ice necessarily melts.

And the planet necessarily warms.

Hence the ice age ending.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

I have a plan for you.
Move inland.


Right this is another statement that makes me shiver...first if something happened I would move..but your argument can be used to any location for any variable..live in a high crime rate area? Move....live in tornado alley? Move....live by a fault line...move....

Then it will be ...live where it is so crowded there isn't enough resources? Move.

My point is places are preparing for it...others aren't.....I actually keep important items in waterproof bags...all my paperwork etc for that reason.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

The global warming crowd has been saying for a long time that it's to late to stop the change. So what exactly do you want us to do? We can't stop the rise or raise the cities. That leaves moving to higher ground.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: rockpaperhammock

The global warming crowd has been saying for a long time that it's to late to stop the change. So what exactly do you want us to do? We can't stop the rise or raise the cities. That leaves moving to higher ground.


I agree it can't be stopped...

Well I think first off cities could make plans and even keep some supplies stored. For example maybe have some cots ready..bottled water...a sort of mini FEMA. Have a plan to use the local high school gynasium or something. Most cities don't have any clue what they would do,and people are too stupid to take care of themselves with things like this.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared
I'll post where I was going with this soon, just gathering some data first.

In the meantime if anyone else wants to address the OP directly - I thank you for your participation!

It's a simple question...



The real question is not so simple, though

the real question is so complex that it is the reason we do not have a simple answer already. (everyone is basically just giving their best guess)

you need to consider the sun and all of the earth's heat transferees. think about heat loss (to space) and to anything the heat of the atmosphere comes into contact with (land). And consider such things as condensation and evaporation, seas, low level lands, rivers, and runoffs, mountains, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Not trying to mess with you, I am just saying... it is not that simple.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

It would, but in the climate system, not all the ice would go into the oceans. A portion of it would remain in the air as increased water vapor.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Approx amount of water required to raise the entire ocean by 3.1mm = 1.116E15 Litres of water.
Approx amount of fresh water used by humans per year = 3.26556E15 Litres of water.
Approx 70% of that is put back in the ground, so - 2.28589E15

The vast majority of the remainder gets dumped into the ocean = 9.7967e14 Litres...or, 87.78% of the rise.

Looks a lot like the majority of sea rise occurs due to our water usage more so than our CO2 emissions.

We take something that is supposed to be at point A. We move it to point B. Then we lament why we can't figure out why resource at point A is dwindling, while resource at point B is 'inexplicably' increasing.

We have drastically increased the rate at which fresh water moves from land to sea, far above the natural cycle. Far above natures ability to move the water back.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420



Approx amount of fresh water used by humans per year = 3.26556E15 Litres of water.

Where does that water come from? Do you think it is all pumped out of the ground? In the US only about 20% (the rest is surface water) of it is and most of that is used for irrigation, so how does that get to the ocean?
water.usgs.gov...

Globally, the numbers are similar.
www.ngwa.org...


Surface water, which most water used by people is, comes from the sky and returns to the sky. Where it eventually falls back to the surface. Ground water, used for irrigation, also mostly ends up in the sky. For a while.

 

It is not only a loss of land ice which leads to increasing sea levels. Increasing sea temperatures also cause thermal expansion.

edit on 8/29/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Well more warming ,means more evaporation which means more rain or snow in places that have been frozen for 1000`s of years . More snow will create larger glaciers .Glaciers come and go and sometimes grow . There seems to be a natural balancing act where seas have risen and sometimes they have fallen . In some places ,flood`s that were common in the past have vanished while other places where they were none have come to experience floods .

Thank`s be to God that we can see things change and have the smarts to migrate to higher ground .I am guessing that North American Natives were better at packing up the tent and moving where it was conducive to life for them . Too bad modern day man has a condo or a high rise or even a bungalow that is a bit harder to factor in .

But we do have better transportation and the ability to move and make a place for ourselves .



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Where does that water come from? Do you think it is all pumped out of the ground? In the US only about 20% of it is and most of that is used for irrigation, so how does that get to the ocean?
water.usgs.gov...

The official number is actually 27%, but that is largely irrelevant, since we don't currently know how much ground water there is, and how it affects the rate of replenishment for fresh water sources. (Our rate of withdrawl has grown considerably since 2005)
source


Surface water, which most water used by people is, comes from the sky and returns to the sky.

Most of the CO2 people use comes from the ground and returns to the ground...oh, that's right, it is the rates at which we do it that is the issue.

I guess that is not an issue for water...


It is not only a loss of land ice which leads to increasing sea levels. Increasing sea temperatures also cause thermal expansion.

Just for fun, what temperature increase is required to thermally expand water at the pressure and salinity found for the majority of the ocean?

More than what has been recorded.

edit on 29-8-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

The official number is actually 27%, but that is largely irrelevant,
Not in the context of your post, which seemed to assume that 100% of the water used by humans is ground water and ends up in the ocean.



Most of the CO2 people use comes from the ground and returns to the ground.
Actually, a good amount of the carbon released by burning fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere. That's why atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising. CO2 doesn't condense like water vapor does.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Just for fun, what temperature increase is required to thermally expand water at the pressure and salinity found for the majority of the ocean?
A lot more than what is seen, obviously. Did you not notice that I said that the loss of land ice is involved as well?


edit on 8/29/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Where I was going with all this is now posted here: Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

Sorry for the thread switch, but I didn't want all that info to get buried away in here. Thanks again for the replies.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peck420

The official number is actually 27%, but that is largely irrelevant,
Not in the context of your post, which seemed to assume that 100% of the water used by humans is ground water and ends up in the ocean.

I made no such claim. I was only showing how drastically humans have modified the natural water cycles.

In fact, I made sure to point out that approx 70% of our water usage gets put directly back into the ground, by the nature of the usage itself (agriculture).


Actually, a good amount of the carbon released by burning fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere. That's why atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising. CO2 doesn't condense like water vapor does.

Atmospheric water concentrations are rising too. It is becoming a major issue and is likely caused by the increased surface temperatures created by urban environments and some types of agriculture. Hotter surface = hotter air = larger H20 carrying capacity.

Ironically, this leads to higher ground water usage, which just exacerbates the problem further. It also doesn't help that we seem pretty determined to replicate this effect by continuously expanding in areas that have the least mitigation to this issue...warm spots.

A lot more than what is seen, obviously. Did you not notice that I said that the loss of land ice is involved as well?

I did, but I'm not arguing against it, so I left it alone.

I am of the mind of 80/20. When you see a problem, you eliminate the 80% that is easiest and fastest to eliminate, then you start whittling down the remainder.

Our water, in the vast majority of the west, is controlled by few which makes it substantially easier to negotiate change. Versus CO2 production which is spread far and wide.

For example, my civic (and provincial) authorities made some substantial environmental law changes over the past decade or so. The water control was implemented immediately in new developments, the treatment facilities have all already been upgrade, and the already built areas are being modify over the next 20 years (give or take...it is politics). This has led to a substantial change in our 'water footprint' (if you will) already, and we are only 10 years in.

They estimate that the population will have changed over to the 'new' laws (pertaining to CO2 emissions) over the next 50 years...or so. It is just that much harder to force a change when you are dealing with a million individuals rather than a few persons.



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join