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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

page: 10
45
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Greven

AND all the others you completely missed right?
9 more and you ONLY react the first one...
REPORT BACK AFTER THE other 9 THEN talk.

Try THIS one...www.washingtontimes.com...

Why do so many use The Washington Times, owned by what some would say a cult, as a legitimate source?

To be fair, though... it wasn't originally them who put this bull# spin on what scientists actually said, but the idiots at the Independent - who have, you might notice (if you bothered to read articles anyway or critique things you read) changed their headline (the URL still shows the original).

However, that dumb paper is guilty of reprinting disinformation that you have now bought into. Good job.

Oh, that reminds me, I wonder what Valentina Zharkova said about that media idiocy:

“We didn't mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it,” she informed IFLScience.
...
The conditions during this next predicted minimum will still be chilly: “It will be cold, but it will not be this ice age when everything is freezing like in the Hollywood films,” Zharkova chuckled.
...
She commented on how the changes in the Sun are likely to affect the Earth's environment. “During the minimum, the intensity of solar radiation will be reduced dramatically. So we will have less heat coming into the atmosphere, which will reduce the temperature.”
...
However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

Quite a bit different than a 'mini ice age' I would say.

It should be pointed out that this is a prediction based on the idea that the Maunder Minimum is responsible for decreased solar output, and subsequently cooler temperatures. Of course, last I heard, The Maunder Minimum Is Dead - Didn't Affect Earth's Climate.
edit on 21Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:38:43 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Plant more trees.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


OK.. so let's associate this temperature trend to real world changes. At the current rate, what changes will mankind notice and when will we notice them? I mean significant stuff, like more rain than snow in Chicago during January. Or eastern Long Island being totally swamped.


edit on 9/3/2016 by carewemust because: ?



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hmmm, let me get this straight, "Nations agreed on a temperature limit", so why is the temperature going up past that??????
(funny)

edit on 3-9-2016 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Okay, the rate of change is highest in a 1000 years.

So what?

Show me what the last million looked like. Show me THOSE peaks.




posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

There weren't 7 billion humans on the planet for the past million years. Except in the past decade or so.

Were there? With 7 billion humans, the problems are a bit more pronounced than for bands of hunter gatherers. You know, cities and stuff. We've sort of got ourselves into a pickle.
edit on 9/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I'm interested in the Obama G 20 summit today on this .
What exactly will reducing HFC emissions mean? I've tried looking for answers but can't find any.

If they are used for refrigeration and air conditioning, surely we are not going to be eliminating those. So if these HFC's have to go, is there an alternative in place? Do they have alternate less harmful coolants to use? Or are we supposed to live in sweat lodges? Eating spoiled food?

Should we be concerned they could start remotely switching off our AC's? For example getting a smart thermostat would not be smart.
I get they would phase certain products out where you could no longer buy an old school thermostat or air conditioning units installed on a limited basis etc. Limiting the times of day they can be used in public buildings

Will new cars be made without them? Since they are the worst they say

I just want to know where is this ban he asked for today really heading.
edit on 3-9-2016 by violet because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2016 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Well then perhaps population control by way of limiting how many children you can have should have been implemented a long time ago. I'll be generous and say each family can have 5 kids! I heard this was coming in our western countries long ago. Never happened.

Not one thing has been done to reduce the pollutants cars put out either. Car pooling? Provide better public transit? N.America has very bad public transit. Also nobody walks. Few bike. Great ideas, those are just two that make sense, but instead they have to do all these other things now to repair the damage.
20 years ago ( at least) they said aerosols were bad, yet they still sell them! I quit using them 15 yrs ago. Why were they not banned?

Amazon forest still being cut down



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Lets face it, we are doomed, we have evolved in to thin skinned spoilt people who rely on often overly used tech to change our living environment rather than doing it the old simple ways. If its hot, open the window etc, instead we turn on the AC when its mildly hot just to make ourselves more comfortable when its not needed, when its cold, add clothing, not instantly turn on gas fires etc. The problem here is that you will not stop this behaviour, its become engrained in our spoilt living patterns, you can ban it as much as you like but folks will still do it no matter at what the cost is just to feel comfortable when they could use a simpler non tech way.

There's no way to police this so we will continue to use seriously stupid stuff just to make ourselves feel a little better.

Lets face it, we have become lazy and spoilt beyond all, even if we know for a fact its killing the world we will still choose to pamper because its the easy way at he time.

Lets also look at the fact that what seem like small changes affect so much, its so easy to say its just a few degree's her and there with an upward trend to being more dangerous, people ignore the numbers because they are just that, they ignore the risks to get that killer tan, the elderly feel these what seem minor changes so much more and as one of life's most uncared for people they are at the thin end of the stick, those little changes either way WILL kill them, their bodies are not capable of supporting such fast changes and when you add to the fact they no longer heal properly its just inevitable they will be directly affected.

But hey, its just old people eh, who cares, its just them, they are almost dead....

Yes that last bit is for effect, the changes affect the old and the very young as well as every one else in some fashion yet we just ignore the needed life changes because in your head "it won't be me, I have the AC, the gas fire and my body is immune to radiation from the sun".

You keep believing that all the way to the morgue..

I'm not claiming to be the one that is doing it perfectly or better than anyone, I'm just as spoilt but I try to only use the heating when its seriously cold, I use open windows and not AC, don't even have it. I'm as much part of the problem but the point is that we won't change and that will spell our extinction but even minor changes buy more time....Will we learn that...I doubt it
edit on 3-9-2016 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: violet
a reply to: Phage
Well then perhaps population control by way of limiting how many children you can have should have been implemented a long time ago. I'll be generous and say each family can have 5 kids! I heard this was coming in our western countries long ago. Never happened.

Not one thing has been done to reduce the pollutants cars put out either. Car pooling? Provide better public transit? N.America has very bad public transit. Also nobody walks. Few bike. Great ideas, those are just two that make sense, but instead they have to do all these other things now to repair the damage.
20 years ago ( at least) they said aerosols were bad, yet they still sell them! I quit using them 15 yrs ago. Why were they not banned?

Amazon forest still being cut down


Valid points but you forget just how entrenched the lazy factor is, people drive the car around the corner to the shop to buy a drink rather than walk, they do it because they are spoilt and that is a hard fact to teach people.

As for children, I've been a long supporter of 2 kids, its a nice number and allows for people maybe wanting one of each or just a companion for the other child. I also have felt that people should only adhere to the old "only breed what you can feed" ideal with the emphasis on YOU and not the state being the paying for feeding. Too many folks use the excuse of religion and ignorance to pump children out yet lack the ability to fund and look after these children properly, they EXPECT the tax payer to do that...WRONG!!!....But sadly its considered PC to say against it..Oh dear, I just did..

Why should a man or woman working full time to look after their own be expected to fund people who BY CHOICE ignore the point they don't have the money and DEMAND these working folk pay for their laziness. If you have the money have as many was you can afford to give the same quality of life to. Sadly its hard to ask loving parents to choose less to keep the planet going when they can afford the children but it may yet come to that.

The main issue is that we have got to a namby pamby state of affairs where when its just a little cold the heating is full on, when its hot just not roasting the AC goes on regardless. Sadly this is almost impossible to stop, people just see it as if its not them causing any problems and 'what will a little AC do eh'.

Sadly its part of the way we think now...
edit on 3-9-2016 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-9-2016 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Tell a lie often enough and keep repeating it and eventually it will become the truth. Does Goebbell's work for NASA?



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Considering humanity didn't have an accurate means of measuring temperature 1000 years ago....

Conjecture.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where can I find numbers on the average temperature of Earth by year? This chart you present suggests the data is available, so I'd like to see the data by year instead of this chart.

Read the article. All of its data is sourced if you'd click on the links in the article. You know, expend some effort?
I guess it was ridiculous of me to think you would have any information ready on hand about what the temperature of Earth was last year when talking about global warming. LOL. I'll expend as much or little effort as I want, thanks for your concern though. I'll worry about how much effort I expend, and you can worry about how much effort you expend. Meanwhile, I have yet to have a discussion about global warming with anyone ATS because your side of the debate cannot tell me what the temperature of Earth is.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t
As I'd posted previously, the single largest contributing source of AGW gases are the coal fired electric plants.

The only way to get a handle on this will be to sharply accelerate the replacement of coal fired plants with electricity produced at renewable sourced energy plants. A carbon tax on electricity should be imposed such that the cost of electricity is near doubled to reduce usage.

In my area, they're pushing for a per mile vehicle usage tax to reduce gasoline/diesel usage. And there's talk of closing the State parks to remove them as a destination for driving vacations. I'd think we should lobby Congress to close the National Parks to discourage people using them as driving vacation destinations.

My biggest pet peeve is the airlines spewing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. A carbon tax sufficient to triple the cost of air travel should be immediately imposed to drastically reduce the obscene number of daily flights.

Hopefully, when HRC is installed as POTUS, some of these problems can be adequately addressed.


You and I must live in different dimensions. You want the government to tax things to discourage their use. You're in favor of closing national parks so people can't drive there. And, your happy to trust Hillery with your money and your land.

Everyone of those points is why the discussion of climate change is suspicious.




top topics



 
45
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join