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.

 

‘Unprecedented’: Scientists declare global climate emergency; jet stream crosses equator

page: 9
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I don't like the deforestation anymore than you do, in fact, it bugs the piss out of me when I see woods or forests being cleared out for no reason. The polluting, however, pinpoints to major cities, not the rest of the world. The feds should raise their taxes and stop making me pay for their mistakes.

And you never answered my question. What are you doing to combat man made global warming?




posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LSU0408

I didn't miss it you just didn't read my source which goes over several studies on consensus.

Your article is using 1.


You linked me to a consensus on a consensus, friend. I did read it, and it's still opened in another tab on my PC.

It was a consensus on the following, which they defined as a "climate myth" about a Petition Project featuring over 31,000 scientists denying AGW.

"There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ..."


Your link is just saying that the petition was a myth. Had nothing to do with what I posted.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I don't think China is dumb, however, I don't think they're as concerned as America's political left when it comes to the Earth warming up. I'm sure you can find some Chinese who are, but as a whole, I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

I didn't know you addressed me with that question.

What am I doing? I control my consumption, am careful of its sourcing, have solar panels, and drive as little as possible. I am a wrestling coach in the winter and summer so biking is pretty much my mode of transportation more often during the week than driving.

I also try and educate people to design science ideas like Bucky Fuller spent his life working on. The leasy amount of materials for artifact.


Eventually I will retire in NM and be off the grid entirely. Though o have to admit on top of conservation that is just wanting to be left alone.

I can fully admit that science has been perverted by money power. Some of the solutions are obviously political and promote the Buddy system of political favor and even stifle competition imo.

However the same applies for climate change denial. Industry also pays those scientists to say what favors them.

So you are correct to be skeptical. For instance this very OP.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

It doesn't matter their government is very concerned with the polution and have Forseen it will effect production and health of the workforce they rely on

They have fully signed on to the treaties



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Off hand, I don't know.


Well you probably should if you want to convince me that CO2 levels have anything to do with climate change.


But those spikes are significantly less than the current one.


Which I'd say is pretty solid evidence of humans raising the CO2 levels.... but changing the climate?



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: amazing

I believe they're paid to give certain answers. My response to you was simply that the poster wasn't talking about all scientists.


And my response to all of you is why are Climate scientists the only ones under this much scrutiny? The answer is because paid disinformation agents, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly Ann Coulter, Breitbart writers etc are telling you they can't be trusted and like sheep you believe them.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly... China and its population of 1.4 billion isn't going to do a damn thing so no matter how much WE as federal taxpayers fund this global warming BS, it's not going to change. Between them and India, we're looking at 2.72 billion people that aren't going to do jack. Think 320 million will make a difference versus that? Me either.


So what? So even if this was true, which it isn't entirely, y'all are saying we do nothing but sit here and take it? Not prepare? Not believe? Not contribute or cooperate or protect ourselves? Pffft. There's a word for this that used to be used a lot around here.


Ok, tell me what you're doing to combat AGW.


Please point out where I mentioned "combat."

edit on 6/30/2016 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

It's called the monsoon and it happens every year-calling it unprecedented is like calling a leopard with an extra spot on it's fur unprecedented. Granted it is bad but these climatologists are not doing themselves any favors by becoming alarmists; I believe we are contributing to the deterioration of our atmosphere and to quote a famous slogan "It won't happen overnight but it will happen."




edit on 30-6-2016 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Here's what I think:

It doesn't have to be rocket science just positive common sense.

1. Pick up and Recycle the road side, beach side, parking lot, woods and stream's trash.
2. Turn off lights when you are not in a room. ALL Cities should turn off lights from 10:00 pm until 5:00 am
Do we need to waste energy and heat up the planet every night?
3. Stop urban sprawl. Rehab the inner cities and older buildings.
4. Develop free clean energy ideas and Use them. Wind, Solar, Water Power.
5. Pollution laws need to be made and enforced. It is a crime against the planet, animals, and humanity.
6. Mass transient transportation needs to be installed. No more planes, trains, or buses. Transportation running on magnets.
7. The USA needs to be self reliant. Not importing and exporting so much....We should make our own products and reduce reuse and recycle. Buy used items folks. Take items to Goodwill, don't fill up landfills with great stuff.
8. Everyone should garden more and stop eating processed food. Compost.
9. Killing endangered animals or any animals should be considered a crime.
10. No more pesticides. Leave the bees alone in peace.

We need Balance back....Peace...Harmony... and not more, more, more. Everyone should tolerate and work together.
The news media should focus on positive things, and the items I mentioned above. We create our own reality. So let's get busy.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Also what they fail to tell you is that to build one of those wind turbines, the lifespan of that single turbine will NEVER offset the fossil fuel expenditure it took to produce and place it.


That's just false. If it were true, then the turbines would have cost far more because of the embedded cost of the fossil fuels used in its manufacturing.
edit on 30-6-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: frugal

6. Mass transient transportation needs to be installed. No more planes, trains, or buses. Transportation running on magnets.
7. The USA needs to be self reliant. Not importing and exporting so much....We should make our own products and reduce reuse and recycle. Buy used items folks. Take items to Goodwill, don't fill up landfills with great stuff.
8. Everyone should garden more and stop eating processed food. Compost.

10. No more pesticides. Leave the bees alone in peace.



I agree. But a few of these are at odds with the 1% agenda. There's the flip side of the theory that most here seem to be espousing. The real side probably.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Also what they fail to tell you is that to build one of those wind turbines, the lifespan of that single turbine will NEVER offset the fossil fuel expenditure it took to produce and place it.


That's just false. If it were true, then the turbines would have cost far more because of the embedded cost of the fossil fuels used in its manufacturing.

Hey behave. Logic labelled DUH has no place in the anti GW thinking!



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

Humm, except that Climate Change does happen in a normal world. I still don't get it why some people can't understand that natural climate change has happened many times and will continue happening.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Um, well corellation/causation is in play. It is a fact that human-based activity is fueling global warming. It's yours to choose how much.
a reply to: Discotech



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
So, assuming this is bad, just exactly what are we supposed to do about it? Quick everyone, fart in the same direction!.....



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Bio domes? As long as Stephen Baldwin is lead engineer, I'm down.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
There are two jet streams in each hemisphere. The polar jet is the one most are familiar with, it resides mainly at higher latitudes. There is also the subtropical jet, it resides at lower latitudes.

The locations of the jet streams are determined by the convergence of large air masses of different temperatures. The polar jet forms where the cold polar airmass meets the warmer temperate airmass. The subtropical jet forms where the warm temperature airmass meets the warmer tropical airmass. These large airmasses vary in extent and location, as they change shape the location of the jet streams change. It is possible that, as the Arctic warms, the polar jet will migrate more northward.
www.srh.noaa.gov...
 

But the wind simulation which created the brouhaha does not show a jet stream crossing the equator, it shows high altitude winds being affected by upper level pressure differences, just as surface winds are. Air moving from a high pressure area north of the equator to a low pressure area south of it, that's all. It shows nothing particularly abnormal. This is, once again, a case of someone not understanding what the simulation actually shows.


Paul Beckwith should not be relied upon for his opinions on climatology. He is indeed, somewhat of an alarmist.
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com...



Seriously, thank you for the information and link. It's been informative. I'm still reading up on the anomaly extremes by the original blogger. His analysis seems to be more concerned with warm air getting dragged to Antarctica. Obviously they think they are seeing high level winds behave in new ways...but there is no historical context and yes, the jet stream references make it even more confusing. Increased waviness in the streams pulling high level winds to all the wrong places? Anyways, I'm slow to digest large, unfamiliar meals. Thanks for the buffet!




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: bknapple32

Perhaps I should rephrase it to "Scientists in the field of Climatology are clueless", as they cannot form a general consensus.


Strange, for they have done just that. Perhaps you are the clueless one here.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves




but there is no historical context

You can find that here. With a bit of effort.
vortex.plymouth.edu...

Winds crossing the equator at the 250mb level is hardly unprecedented. (Select streamlines)


edit on 7/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join