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.

 

Researchers say some parts of the globe will become so hot they'll be uninhabitable

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

desertification is the fault of bad agricultural management, not like the alarmists are blaming it on global warming.
Like you say mono cropping but also weeding, the use of biocides and chemical fertilizers.
With good management you can turn deserts back into fertile soils. Just look at some of the projects from Sepp Holzer or Geoff Lawton.
edit on 9-5-2016 by intergalactic fire because: or




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
some ME and NAfrica countries still use communal grazing and in general practice much poorer agriculture practices like monocropping than other areas in the world. Combine that with an increasing population that is pushing out into harder areas to farm. Yup desertification will happen.


You should make a thread about that, very interesting topic!



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
IGNORE these hippies and their attempt to tax the planet, I WILL...
www.aei.org... r-2/
edit on 9-5-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

We cannot have a legitimate discussion with someone who labels those of us who understand atmospheric chemistry as 'alarmists'.

Please kindly troll elsewhere, or at least contribute more than hot air and derogatory buzz words to this thread



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

OKAY ....you are wrong and OUR scientistas disagree with you..www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: intergalactic fire

We cannot have a legitimate discussion with someone who labels those of us who understand atmospheric chemistry as 'alarmists'.

Please kindly troll elsewhere, or at least contribute more than hot air and derogatory buzz words to this thread

Troll?Hot air and buzz? No time to read the papers or just lazy? What is wrong saying alarmist, it's not my calling they actually liked to be called that way.
You said you lived off grid so you must know about the best way to grow your own food and it's not how big agriculture is doing it.
edit on 9-5-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
smurfy:

Here's a look back at the scientific luridness since 1970,
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” -Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.


Technically, it's true, just out by 16 years. After June 23rd, 2016, England won't politically and sovereignly exist, it will have become another piece of the EU superstate, regardless of how the people of England vote. They will finally be allowed to exercise their right to vote in a referendum on the subject of the EU, but under no circumstance will they be allowed to decide the outcome of the vote. They only get to participate in the 'act' of voting, to ensure that people remain firmly deluded that democracy is still active.

Anyway. Take a look at the following as it provides a clue to why things are warming up around the planet, not in a homogeneous fashion, but in a celluar fashion...

phys.org...

Heat from the sun is hottest at the equator (of course), and this heat (along with the spin of the earth) rising back up into the atmosphere and expanding both north and south is what creates all the different winds, with a similar mixing mechanism of varying temperature gradients at work in the seas and oceans. This all damn mechanism is part of the natural phase of the planet warming and cooling, and currently we have entered are now in a warming phase.

By itself, this warming and cooling mechanism is not enough to account for all the warming we are experiencing around various parts of the planet, which will eventually all conjoin to raising the temperature around the planet by one and a half to two and a half degrees, maybe even taking it to three or four degrees, which would be absolutely catastrophic for coastal habitations around the world. There are other variables at play which are contributive to the warming outcome, one of which is our constantly expanding carbon footprint, which is also polluting. Our carbon-emitting activities are not causal of climate swings, but contributive, and it was probably the only dynamic we actually had a chance to control, but that chance has now come and gone. So a so-called carbon tax is like shutting the barn door when the horse has already (like Elvis) left the building.

It would seem that the seeking to lower carbon emission is an attempt only to lessen warming impact, not to stop it, because that we cannot do, it's too late.

So, in support of the OP's theme, countries around the equator and latitudes further north and south are going to become harsh and hot environments, and people that currently live in these tropical zones are going to start migrating, which then adds societal problems to the mix of warming problems.

The question at that point is...do countries close their borders or allow in the migrating peoples?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: intergalactic fire

We cannot have a legitimate discussion with someone who labels those of us who understand atmospheric chemistry as 'alarmists'.


Well, to be sure, Carrots are getting bigger, that means more people are needed to pull them.
As for those who understand atmospheric chemistry, could you please relate exactly how carrot pullers stand in atmospheric chemistry, in a global warming or global cooling situation?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

And if they said that there was no global warming, they would be UNEMPLOYED or working at burger king making minimum wage.

I'm sorry, but I don't listen to snake oil sales-people, especially when the evidence they present, was created by them.

"Step right up, this is YOUR lucky day!! Keep paying us, because a REAL calamity is approaching!! We need more funding!! BEHOLD, I present to you, THIS DATA!!!!!!! Look at what I typed up to show you!!!"

Doom porn. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Matadoor



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Oh my.

What a load of hooey.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
smurfy:

Here's a look back at the scientific luridness since 1970,
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” -Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.


Technically, it's true, just out by 16 years.

Technically, it's not true at all, otherwise, and going by the criteria, people would not be flocking to live there, same as France, Germany and all the rest of mainland Europe.
Ehrlich simply, verbally ignored what went on in China in the Mao years, the great famine when dozens of millions of Chinese peasants died, not solely because of him in the great leap forward, but that Mao did not account for weather, not fortunate because of the erratic weather patterns of the time, but I'll bet, both Mao and Ehrlich made mileage out of it in their different ways.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Many centuries ago, during the Age of Exploration, it was theorised that there was a mirrored counterpart to the northern hemisphere, and inbetween lay an uninhabitable belt of tropical heat.

I can look up the details if anyone is interested.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: matadoor

How cool are you subjecting your country to a TAX based on that?
WHICH IS ,in fact ,the purpose of this little controversy,in the first place.
edit on 10-5-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The taxes associated with global warming are just another way to get additional funds for the government.

Exactly what are those funds used for, in regards to the global warming itself? Do they buy carbon filters? Extra gas masks? AIr conditioners?

Nope, they fund the government.

M..



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: matadoor

It would fund the UN.
OR whomever RUNS the UN.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join