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.
There's a few semi-frequent commentators on the Gawker network who are fantastic reminders that the Information Age has failed and that people are going to continue to be willfully dumb* in spite of having access to more facts than any other time in history. Yesterday, one of them left a comment (which, thankfully, is greyed out) which contained this large order of word salad:
The whole reason that the warmingscam people changed to "Climate Change" was to gain a newspeak redefinition that confuses the non-science people since everyone accepts Earth has no stable climate and Earth's climate changes radically. By tieing Warmism backward into climate change, they used a classic sophist word trick- redefine your losing argument by renaming it into something less definable . It is a sophist bonus point if like 'climate change' ,you can redefine to something no one argues against and thus use the sophist transitive property to make a falsity "true" by changing the name.
This word salad, of course, ignores the facts:
1) global warming is a form of climate change; the latter is a climatic trend, the former is the directionality of it
2) scientists have been using both terms, accurately, for basically forever
According to whom?
The increase in temperatures so deep in the ocean can only come from geothermal heating
Thus, no significant change in the relationship between potential temperature and dissolved oxygen has occurred for either the warmer or colder portions of the mNADW. Again, it is unlikely that the observed warming can be explained by geothermal heating. We conclude therefore that the changes observed result from changes in the oceanographic circulation.
We have shown that the water in the densest water masses warmed along 47 8 N during the period 1985–1999 and conclude that a change in the oceanography is needed to account for this evolution. The warming was brought about by a decrease in the volume of the lower part of the mNADW at least along 47 8 N. The distribution of dissolved oxygen in the deep layers of the North Pacific 10 suggests that the bottom water in the western North Pacific is fed from the Samoa passage, spreading northwards through the Wake Island passage (see Fig. 1). In the South Pacific, the source region of the bottom water in the North Pacific, warming of the NADW has previously been suggested 7,11 , all reporting changes in water masses in the Samoa passage, within the relatively recent time period when data are available.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman
I don't think geomagnetic drift has much influence on global temperatures or climate.
Are you saying that air molecules are affected by magnetism?
Well, water for sure with its weak magnetic field. To say air with all it's components is something different but water is certainly in the air. If the poles move the water patterns follow it. A physicist i work with thinks the temps are actually balancing out in other places where it is warmer here it is colder there theory.
Preferable to it getting cooler.
When we look at the behaviour of all these all over the world there is only one conclusion : the world is getting warmer.
But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed. Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.
Why don't you quit replying to my posts, seriously, you're uninformed and have nothing meaningful to add to the thread. I'm well aware of the difference between climate and weather. You're the one that don't know jack # and it shows.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee
You seriously seem to be having problems understanding the difference between climate and weather.
This has been explained before in this thread and in relation by other members and to be specific its seems at this point its, "over your head".
Link
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
By contrast, climate modelers have the advantage that they will be long since retired when their predictions don’t come to pass."
Link
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
posted on May, 8 2017 @ 11:00 PM in this thread...
Climate engineering
Main article: Climate engineering
Climate engineering (sometimes called geoengineering or climate intervention) is the deliberate modification of the climate. It has been investigated as a possible response to global warming, e.g. by NASA[217] and the Royal Society.[218] Techniques under research fall generally into the categories solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal, although various other schemes have been suggested. A study from 2014 investigated the most common climate engineering methods and concluded they are either ineffective or have potentially severe side effects and cannot be stopped without causing rapid climate change.[219]