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.

 

24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But the antoher paragraph says

"


The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.


Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well I could ask the same questions of the late 1800s - why did it all of a sudden get much colder

Why did the MWP suddenly get much warmer.

neither event is suspected of being caused by anthropogenic forcings - so why did they happen. Maybe the same thing that caused MWP is at work here and if Tsonis Syncronized Chaos is correct and we experience much colder tempertures, does that mean that the effect of anthropogenic forcings was dwarfed by something else?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Even though it would seem that he is using an as yet unverified prediction to validate his prediction, he is still acknowledging an anthropogenic trend.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But what if it isn't the major climate forcing but just some minor forcing of little value?

What if we stopped thinking of climate in terms of atmopheric thing but instead started thinking of it as more of an ocean thing. Like a patient with a fever will radiate heat from his body. The layers of air around the patient obviously get warmer but the problem is actually in the body (or the ocean),

It makes sense to me. The oceans cover 78 % of the earth or the vast majority of its mass. radiation penetrates some distance into the ocean in a way that it just does not do in soil.

Like the layers of air around the patient will dissapate, the further it gets from the body, the atmosphere dissapates heat into space. Even with a increase in CO2, the dissapation may be slighter slower but it still dissapates. So if the ocean discharges heat to the atmophere, it will dissapate into space.

If the Tsonis syncronocity chaos theory is correct, the ocean is about to throw out an awful lot of heat and it is possible that we will see global temperatures decrease as low as they were in the late 1800s. This is mighty low and it will take many decades for the ocean to heat up again.

What if this is the natural climate cycle and like the human body, just a natural variation within a normal temperature ranges.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




What if this is the natural climate cycle and like the human body, just a natural variation within a normal temperature ranges.
Then, no harm done. We have cleaner and more efficient means of producing energy. Bummer.

What if it isn't? What if it is us (and it probably is)?

This is way off topic and I'm going to bed.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

But no - we do not have a cleaner more efficent way of creating energy. Every "green" energy source requires that we build a co-generation plant of some sort so that we can feed the grid in a consistant way. If we trashed every turbine and solar panel and just operated the co-generation plant, it would be more effecient.

Are you forgetting that turbines require rare earth metals, mined in China at great environmental cost with about 4000 kg of steel.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Geothermal plants require a higher cost to build, but the energy produced costs roughly half of what coal does.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage
But what if it isn't the major climate forcing but just some minor forcing of little value?

I think you're absolutely right Control Freaks! Greven actually posted a really good analysis a few days ago somewhere on this forum showing that observational data gave less warming than the IPCC's formula Ln(C1/CO)*5.35 and the observations imply that the constant in the formula should be closer to 3.83 (althought I got 3.45). Assuming a constant of 3.45 we get a radiative forcing of 2.39 W/sq.m from a doubling of CO2 and a temperature rise at the surface of only 0.44C. Furthermore, the study could only attribute about 10% of the overall trend in back-radiation to CO2.

I think a more likely candidate for the recent warming is clouds. Kenneth Richard has compiled no less than 20 studies showing that changes in cloud cover and albedo have significntly increased the amount of radiation absorbed by the surface. One such study is called 'Late 20th-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover'. Quote from the paper:

"The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984-2009] means that 5.4 W/m2 is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere. To put this [5.4 W/m2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC AR5 states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 W/m2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 W/m2. The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC's estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide".

Gosh, a forcing 3 times greater in 10 years from clouds than the total forcing from CO2 since 1750. This study is not a one-off either. There are lots more studies showing clouds overwhelming the forcing from CO2.
edit on 3-1-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

yes I agree - geothermal is a viable energy source that could be constant. However, as you build more plants, they get closer together. However, geothermal is NOT what is being built in a majority of the cases.

Nor am I saying that turbines and solar don't have a place. They are perfect for site specific purposes. You just can't support an entire civilization with an inconstant energy suppy.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: markosity1973
Thank you.

Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could — within as little as 10 years


So, if I may paraphase: he was relaying that scientist had said that it was possible that in "as little as 10 years" a tipping point "could"Well, the 10 years are about up, by now, warming should have reached “planetary emergency levels”
so your deflection is that the scientists got it wrong, not al gore? Ooookaaayy.......

The fact remains that the fear mongering from so called scientists that al gore was promoting was wrong.

edit on 3-1-2016 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




yes I agree - geothermal is a viable energy source that could be constant. However, as you build more plants, they get closer together. However, geothermal is NOT what is being built in a majority of the cases.

Why would it matter how close they are?

The reason they are not being built is because banks would rather lend to coal for a faster turnaround on their investment. This is where the government should make the loans, but because of meddling with interest groups ie lobbyists geothermal isn't a developing technology and doesn't qualify for most loans.




Nor am I saying that turbines and solar don't have a place. They are perfect for site specific purposes. You just can't support an entire civilization with an inconstant energy suppy.


Solar is best for individual homes IMO but geothermal is a consistent energy supply and there is enough potential Geothermal energy in the US to run the entire country 20 times over.

The US electrical grid is outdated and vulnerable to attack IMO that should be a high priority to fix.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Innocent? That's an odd word to use.


That he doesnèt know that he is selling snake oil. Is that your opinion.
That's a trick question, don't you think? Sort of like "are you still beating your wife?"

It is my opinion, which I presume I've made quite clear over the years here on ATS, that global warming and its effects on climate is a matter of very great concern. It doesn't really matter what Al Gore or Anthony Watts say about.




...yes but not exactly. The scientists who invented global warming said they were wrong and Gore kept running with it (which is fraud).

Carbon gases affect certain things in "climate change" but have never been linked to natural disasters (by NOAA's own admission because the can't predict cloud patterns in their models). There is no proof that humans caused the minor warming in the atmosphere over the past 100 years.

You have to be very selective with your scope to think otherwise



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Actually, geothermal, in and of itself DOES NOT produce energy. Geothermal just allows for the circulation of water deep into the earth. The temperature undergound is cooler in the summer. By using a heat exchanger, the coolness can be used to lower the temperature in a building so that you don't have to rely so much on air conditioners. It SAVES energy but does not produce it.

In winter, the temperature underground is warmer than the atmosphere. The warmer water can be directed into a boiler that produces steam to turn turbines and produce electricity.

In both cases, by taking advantages of the temperature differences, energy can be SAVED but it doesn't produce energy, in and of itself.

If large geothermals are placed too close together, they would interfere with each other (such as geothermal units used for large condo projects. When the large condo units are across from each other and each are drilling 120 to 140 wells through which the water is circululated, they will interfere with one another.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: diogeneese33
snowing and twisters in Texas, 75 degree Christmas in DC, Seattle looks Like southern California weather wise almost all year... I think Al Gores intelligence has infected our planets weather system because its clearly insane and makes zero sense!!!


Everything you mention has happened before. Washington DC 1964 on Christmas day- 72 degrees. In 1982, it was 70 degrees on Christmas Day. Nothing new there.

Twisters in Texas? Considering it is a part of the Country known as tornado ally, a twister in Texas should not come as any type of shock.

Snow in Texas? It happens. The first recorded snowfall in Texas was in 1841. There has been as much as a foot of snow at various times in Texas history. Snow in North Texas (Dallas area) has happened anywhere between November and April. Again nothing new.

Sorry but nothing insane about it. Just because you were not aware of it before, does not mean it makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: diogeneese33


snowing and twisters in Texas, 75 degree Christmas in DC, Seattle looks Like southern California weather wise almost all year...


Add freezing temps in the low AZ deserts... I've been covering my rose bushes at night for a week now at least! Although with rain -- and therefore cloud cover -- moving in, the nights will be staying a little warmer.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
When the water and food get so expensive that only the wealthy can live well, where will the deniers be then? They will take from others.
Why are farmers having to invest in irrigation now after 150 years of reliable rain patterns? Where is the water going? These are extremely important questions for the survival of humans.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

food will become more expensive. And here is why:

1. Agricultural land is being used to grow energy instead of fuel. Biofuel. Corn in the United States, Palm oil in Indonesia and Malaysia destined for Europe
2. Agricultural land being wasted as a site for wind turbines.
3. This is an El Nino year. California will finally get rain after 4 years of drought. Stop locating cities like Utah and Nevada in desserts and then transporting water to it. Stop letting people re-locate to areas where the water supply will not support them.
4. Electricity getting more expensive. Not by itself. Oh no. the only way to get anyone to invest in turbines, solar panels and geothermal is to give them subsidies and spread out the cost of the subsidies over the entire electric customer base. In Ontario, when electricity from nuclear cost 17 cents per kilowatt, the subsidy for green source energy was 80 cents a kilowatt. Than to add insult to injury, the excess energy from all the co-generation plants was given away for free to the United States and Quebec.

And when we have used too much of our agricultural land to produce energy and food - Where will the global warming supporters be?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Where I live I don't see new farm land being created. What I do see are farmers selling their land to mansion builders.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

And yet you blame the loss of farmland on people who seriously question not only the global warming theory but also the so-called solutions to move away from fossil fuels.

What the hell have we got to do with the loss of farmland if, as you say, its being sold to mansion builders?

What is your point in posting at all?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

this generation does not want to farm. Hard work doesn't seem to bode well with the young. As they wont take over the farm it dies and we lose another farm.

this is why farmland is dying not fossil fuels



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join