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

Climate change is real: Just ask the Pentagon

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Sounds like we don't have to worry about the islands the Chinese are building in the South China Sea.





posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
climate change is a naturally occurring process that would happen whether humans are here or not.
even if we were to eliminate all human contributions of CO2, significant natural climate change would occur on a massive scale,far more massive than we could prevent or significantly add to.



Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe and North America stopped their creeping advance.The equatorial heat warmed the precincts of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere instead, shrinking the fringing sea ice and changing the circumpolar winds..As a result—and for reasons that remain unexplained carbon dioxide, enough to raise concentrations in the atmosphere by more than 100 parts per million over millennia—roughly equivalent to the rise in the last 200 years. That CO2 then warmed the globe, melting back the continental ice sheets and ushering in the current climate that enabled humanity to thrive.Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear. The research suggests that—contrary to some prior findings—CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa.

www.scientificamerican.com...

so you see, long before humans were contributing any CO2 into the atmosphere there was a massive natural spike in CO2 levels.The natural spike in CO2 levels was so massive that it melted the ice covering much of asia, Europe and north America, ending the ice age.
If the naturally occurring spike of CO2 is on a 20,000 year cycle then the global warming that we are seeing is an expected result.
edit on 24-11-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

Indeed. Ask the mayor of Miami whether climate change is real. Florida's biggest and most vibrant city probably wont be around 30 years from now - as the Leonardo Dicaprio movie "Before The Flood" documents.

If people have any shred of selflessness in them - they will not put their selfish and extractive materialism ahead of the continuity of our species - or existence in general on this beautiful and amazing Earth.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Ain't it funny that astrology calls the next age the age of "Aquarius"? It's as if our insane doings has already been factored in.

This cool little website allows us to see what parts of Earth will be put under water if all the water on Antarctica melts (thus rendering even parts of Antarctica inhabitable). Damn near every coastal city on Earth falls below the water line, and so, disappears from existence. San Fransisco, LA and San Diego, all under water. Portlands under water. Seattle's under water. Vancouver's under water. New York, Boston, Washington D.C, Philadelphia, Baltimore - and the entire state of Florida, under water.

It's seems the only American mega city destined to survive climate change (we may be getting a whiff of that in movies like IRobot) is Chicago. Toronto - Canada's largest city - will also be spared, but Montreal will be put under water.

In all likelihood, then, the North American mega cities of the future - if we don't succumb to a mad-max world - would be these two cities with aboriginal names (unlike all the other's above. Seems apropos)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: VengefulGhost

or believe that people think that they don't know where 16 billion went.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

See, 20,000 years ago a natural geological process melted the ice, yes. But the cause of this climate change is ATHROPOGENIC i.e. induced by human industrial and commercial activities.

The planet naturally produced an emission (probably through volcanic activity). Now imagine another such activity were to happen, IN ADDITION to what we already do. Do you see how extreme that could get? Look up "the venus effect".

This sort of reasoning is very dangerous. Whether climate change is natural is besides the point: we are artificially, outside the normal systematic patterns of the planet, changing the atmosphere.

Let's just pray no serious volcanic activity - or whatever other natural process that releases Co2, such as deep sea carbonate emissions - happens during this period, otherwise we are truly in a bad situation.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod


Stephen Hawkings, Neil DegrasseTyson, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku are some of the biggest names in science today.


yep and they chase those big dollars to don't they, or do you think they do their shows write their books and give lectures for free.

there's big money in global warming and they want a big piece of the pie.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The climate changes no matter what. The continents continue to move, which causes land to sink or rise. Just look at underwater stone structures around the world as proof. The only thing a carbon tax will do is give the government more control over our lives.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
There is no 'science' per say, there are computer models that are not correct.

Climate change is real, man's contribution to it is minimal.

Man's history has been an ongoing battle against the elements. No reason to stop now. We didn't get to where we are now by not lighting a fire, by not developing steam power then combustion, etc.

The greater our technology grows, the better chance we have to avert whatever climate throws at us. For the greenies, the reports that we can now produce ethanol from CO2 gas is actually pretty exciting. Let's see where that goes.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: VengefulGhost

Stephen Hawkings, Neil DegrasseTyson, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku are some of the biggest names in science today. They all concur anthropogenic climate change is real.

Believe what you want, but be aware of the reality of this.



And they all getting money too.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

The "Venus effect"?

Firstly, the atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% carbon dioxide, compared to the Earth's atmosphere having 0.04% carbon dioxide. In the last decade or two, that concentration has increased by 0.002%. At that rate, it will take over 480,000 years to get where Venus is, if the volumes of the atmospheres were the same. They're not; the Venusian atmosphere has about 5 times the volume of Earth's atmosphere. So make that 2.4 million years.

Secondly, Venus is closer to the sun, and therefore receives more intense solar energy. It should be hotter than Earth.

Thirdly, the temperatures on Venus are coincidental with black body radiation in a higher-energy carbon dioxide spectral band than the temperatures on Earth. Carbon dioxide will exhibit a different effect than on Earth.

The "Venus effect" has no correlation to Earth.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I hate this topic. Of course. Climate is a weather pattern in a given area. And it changes...always has, always will,,,even if it hurrying or delaying because of what man does to affect it.

Climate goes hot and cold, good to bad to worse, better to different. Normal and expected..to what degree and in what direction? Who knows for sure?

Climate is normal...so are cyclical and unexpected changes in it...



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


...the reports that we can now produce ethanol from CO2 gas is actually pretty exciting.

Are there new developments in that field? I would be very interested to see how they are overcoming the ionization cost issue (assuming this is the same technology I read about a few years ago). If this problem has been resolved, there may be a way to convert to methanol in the same process by adjusting the ionization level of the solution in an intermediate stage. Methanol is a great replacement for gasoline.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Nature will have its way with Trump and his Mar a Lago estate. I can just imagine the irony, this beautiful property will be underwater in the next 50 years. So if you are under 30 years old, there's a good chance that you will see this in your lifetime.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Please spend a few hundred dollars and travel to China and come back to tell that climate change is not real. Going there will make you a believer.


originally posted by: Teikiatsu
There is no 'science' per say, there are computer models that are not correct.

Climate change is real, man's contribution to it is minimal.

Man's history has been an ongoing battle against the elements. No reason to stop now. We didn't get to where we are now by not lighting a fire, by not developing steam power then combustion, etc.

The greater our technology grows, the better chance we have to avert whatever climate throws at us. For the greenies, the reports that we can now produce ethanol from CO2 gas is actually pretty exciting. Let's see where that goes.

edit on 24-11-2016 by SeekingAlpha because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2016 by SeekingAlpha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Climate change is real, man's contribution to it is minimal.


So sayeth a non-climate scientist.

Seriously, again, why not have the humulity to defer to the specialists? Why do you put yourself in opposition to the authority of an informed majority?




Man's history has been an ongoing battle against the elements. No reason to stop now. We didn't get to where we are now by not lighting a fire, by not developing steam power then combustion, etc.


Well, that's completely insane. Just keep going, regardless of the consequences? Some people don't have a problem being responsible, caring beings. Traumatized people who defend themselves with a naive egotism, on the other hand, have a very hard time coming to grips that their consumption habits have to change. Yes - big brother, that "authority" you hate so much, will regulate how all of us consume - and, furthermore, will be doing so because a majority of the informed specialists - and intelligent citizens - are begging for it.




The greater our technology grows, the better chance we have to avert whatever climate throws at us. For the greenies, the reports that we can now produce ethanol from CO2 gas is actually pretty exciting. Let's see where that goes.


You have a very unreasonable sense of our smallness. It took hundreds of years to create an effect - and now that the effects are manifesting themselves, you think we can just fix ourselves? Hmm. How well does such a method work for people who being to express the symptoms of cancer? That's it. In a dynamic self-regulating systems, sometimes we can do too little too late to counter the sheer force of the total systems dynamics.

Is this recent discovery around ethanol and co2 exciting? Absolutely. It was inevitable that we would find a way to convert co2 into something else. But the question is: is this a reasonable solution? No. Not even close. The scale that this would need to be carried out - and the co2 footprint created just to generate the infrastructure in question - would be insanely inefficient. These sorts of takes are debated, but mostly rejected by sensible people who understand the gravity of the problem and the severity of the consequence.

In short: sometimes, you have to take your medicine and just deal with the bad after taste.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ah, points taken. But you do know that Carl Sagan coined the term "venus effect" - and he apparently thought it had some relevance to the earth.

Your point about Venus being closer to the sun is a good one, and so modifies my position. Still, many coastal cities face disaster - and the economy and civilization we have built may be vulnerable under the stresses of frequent natural disasters.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor


The Pentagon only says climate change is real, they did not make any statements over 'anthropogenic' climate change.

The Pentagon is not tasked to determine the proportion of climate change to be anthropogenic. As stated in the Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 2010, which I excerpted above, Pentagon planning for response is based upon finding of United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), (you can look that up in Wikipedia)


Future Climate

Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.
U.S. Global Change Research Program (Highlights)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod


COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.



MYTH 5: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 6: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

MYTH 7: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
edit on 25-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: spelling



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Would you tell us where you copy and pasted that from?




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join