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.

 

"Global Warming", Ha Ha, tell me another good joke!

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Daalder

Stop building cities on know flood plains could also be agood answer




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

Stop building cities on flood plains? What about the ones that are already built on them? Are you proposing that we just up and relocate EVERY city in the world that exists on low lying flood plains?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: Painterz

You mean the same 99% that can't tell us the correct temp more then a day out?

When they can predict the temp for a whole week correctly MAYBE I will think about their long term predictions.

Predicting the weather isn't the same thing as analyzing changes in climate. It's not even the same science...



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I have nothing for climate change, global warming just some co2 issues that made sense to me relating to the gulf stream. All I know is here in South Carolina on the beach I am wearing shorts in January, nothing new but point being, the weather here is awesome. I mean, yeah Costa Rica is the shiz but some of the beaches here are nice and so is the weather, laws suck. I think it wouldn't hurt for environmentalists to start a tree planting campaign, trees are good. Jill Stein could have done it with her nonsense 8 million dollar recount money BUT as usual most environmentalists are fake like news.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Might not be a bad idea.

Start moving people to higher ground and make the old areas water shed areas. We don't need the direct access that was needed 100's of years ago. Would also allow better city planning on the newareas and would better integrate
thingd like mass transit and population flow control.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Might not be a bad idea.

Start moving people to higher ground and make the old areas water shed areas. We don't need the direct access that was needed 100's of years ago. Would also allow better city planning on the newareas and would better integrate
thingd like mass transit and population flow control.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Might not be a bad idea.

Start moving people to higher ground and make the old areas water shed areas. We don't need the direct access that was needed 100's of years ago. Would also allow better city planning on the newareas and would better integrate
thingd like mass transit and population flow control.

Who is going to pay for this then? You?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

use some of that Global Warming research money.
Or how about some of that Green Energy money?

Lots of money floating around to promote "cause's" could be diverted to actually FIX issues instead of "studying" them.

Think of how much could of been done with all the money dumped into the "Big Dig" Probable wound have been able to biuld a whole new twon with just that bundle.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

I really have trouble labeling the relocation of billions of people from the coasts as a "fix". More like a band-aid at best. A very expensive one.
edit on 11-1-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: arcnaver

So, if green things use Carbon Dioxide as a main source of energy, which allows them to thrive, which would in turn consume carbon dioxide and release oxygen, wouldn't this be good for the entire planet?
Green things use sunlight as their source of energy.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc




One volcano going off does more then all man has done in 100 years or more.

False. Very false.
www.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 1/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
volcanoes.usgs.gov...


By far the most abundant volcanic gas is water vapor, which is harmless.

It was my understanding water vapor was a greenhouse gas of some significance?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Low tides are higher and high tides are higher than I have ever seen.

Is it possible what you are seeing is land subsidence?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
Yes. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. But the atmospheric content of water vapor is dependent upon temperature. When temperature declines, water vapor is forced out of the atmosphere (dew, rain, snow).

That's one of the problems presented by CO2, which is not temperature dependent. The warming it causes allows more water vapor to remain in the atmosphere, increasing radiative forcing. It's a positive feedback situation. CO2 causes some warming, which increases water vapor content, which causes more warming.

edit on 1/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

No. Not the effects I have seen in the recent past. They are caused, as I said, by a "dome" of warm water in the region.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: searcherfortruth
Let's get real people, this debate over "Global Warming" is ridiculous. When the Earth is traveling 100,000 miles an hour, rotating on its axis, revolving around a Sun, hurtling through the galaxy, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for billions of years, the climate is naturally going to be affected over the course of time.

Pole shifts and magnetic interference will cause there to be a lack of protection in the ozone allowing for a greater increase in radiation from the Sun. Where the Earth is when this happens, the part of the Earth that has the least protection will be the focus of extra heat and will be warmer. There will be some areas that get colder because they are facing away from the directed radiation.

Glad you mentioned Ozone. We (smart humans) noted that CFC's emitted globally were responsible the reduction in the Ozone layer. We (smart humans) introduced a ban and the hole(s) eventually recovered, and still are. It's not an instant thing like a tweet.

So YOU have two choices:

1. Human activity can affect the whole planet detrimentally and we can repair the damage if we try.
OR
2. The Ozone depletion and recovery was all natural and a phenomenally massive coincidence.

Which one ?



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
what if all of this global warming/climate change fear is merely another Dansgaard–Oeschger event?

Dansgaard–Oeschger event


In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[3] Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BomSquad

Dansgaard–Oeschger events are regional, not global, episodes.
www.realclimate.org...

edit on 1/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Phage
volcanoes.usgs.gov...


By far the most abundant volcanic gas is water vapor, which is harmless.

It was my understanding water vapor was a greenhouse gas of some significance?



It is, but geological or human emissions are insignificant with water vapor, because the statistical equilibrium with the far larger oceans is what matters. So it's practically like spitting in the wind.

The atmosphere will have the water it does, based on its temperature, ocean temperature, and wind patterns primarily. If you entirely saturated or dessicated the entire atmosphere, it would get back to normal in 2 or 3 weeks. So emissive activities have no significant effect, unlike CO2, CH4 and greenhouse-active flourocarbons. If it rained or snowed dry ice then there would be CO2 weather to worry about, but that doesn't happen.

Almost literally like spitting in the wind: not big enough to make any difference. There is obviously much more water vapor, per molecule, in the atmosphere than CO2 or the even rarer other greenhouse gases. The effect overall is roughly proportional to the quantity of those molecules times their individual physical potency in re-radiating infrared. CFC's are extremely potent per molecule, but are much rarer in the atmosphere (though they should be zero) so the total effect is not as large as CO2 and water, though scientists do track this as well. (The professionals look at many anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change, not just CO2)

edit on 11-1-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BomSquad
what if all of this global warming/climate change fear is merely another Dansgaard–Oeschger event?

Dansgaard–Oeschger event


In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[3] Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common.


The attribution of most global warming to increased greenhouse effect today, specifically as opposed to other causes, is very well established by data and experiments. It isn't just an observation of warming, and saying "hey it could be from greenhouse", it was starting from that point in the 1950's and 1960's and validating or refuting it with extensive sets of observations and experiments.

The specific physical mechanism has many signs beyond just global warming. And if we had global climate observations back 11,500 years ago, we would also know the mechanistic driving forces which originated that climate change then. Natural effects also have specific scientific causes related to laws of physics, like everything else in the world.
edit on 11-1-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join