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.

 

Report Sees Drastic Climate Change Impact in U.S. Completely Conteradicts what trump says.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Or a better question. Or two.

Why was it so hot then?

Why did it cool back down?

How did man survive that heat?




posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: kurthall
Some will argue, because false #s were reported by some, or that this is all just hype. I disagree.


"Washington (AFP) - Average US temperatures have risen dramatically and fast, with recent decades the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a draft federal government report cited by The New York Times on Tuesday."



"Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now," said the report by 13 federal agencies not yet released or approved by President Donald Trump's administration.


"The report "directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain and that the ability to predict the effects is limited," the Times said."


Seeing as we are the 2nd largest green house gas producing country on the planet, I would think we would be at least taking precautions, that perhaps maybe there is something to this global warming thing.

Here is the link to the article also a link about Climate Scientist those for and against global warming.

www.yahoo.com...



www.vox.com...


I mean is it really that hard to grasp, that there are billions of us now polluting the earth, and that just maybe doing so is causing harm? Is it really that unreasonable to think that?





So what thermometers were they using over the past 1500 years?




I have no idea how climate scientist figure this out, I guess that is why they studied it and I did not. I also don't understand, nor do I want to, Carbon Dating, that can go back 10,000s of years.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

When are people going to realize scientists all over the world are actually right and the ones who deny AGW are grossly informed(gullible) or have a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.

It is cute that the science denying crowds uses names like chicken littles, fear mongerors, or cult followers when the sad reality is the ones who won't accept the science due to clever campaigns of doubt and disinfo or the ones behaving in cult like fashion.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Hey, you have to remember:

If there's more ice, it's due to climate change. If there's less ice? climate change. Hotter temperatures? climate change. Colder? Climate change. Your bacon get burned this morning? Climate change. Did it rain yesterday? Climate change. Have a hole in your sock? Climate change. New Elder Scrolls Game announcement pushed back? Climate change.

Climate change is the phrase we use now to explain things we don't like, and just about everything for that matter.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: kurthall
Some will argue, because false #s were reported by some, or that this is all just hype. I disagree.


"Washington (AFP) - Average US temperatures have risen dramatically and fast, with recent decades the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a draft federal government report cited by The New York Times on Tuesday."



"Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now," said the report by 13 federal agencies not yet released or approved by President Donald Trump's administration.


"The report "directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain and that the ability to predict the effects is limited," the Times said."


Seeing as we are the 2nd largest green house gas producing country on the planet, I would think we would be at least taking precautions, that perhaps maybe there is something to this global warming thing.

Here is the link to the article also a link about Climate Scientist those for and against global warming.

www.yahoo.com...



www.vox.com...


I mean is it really that hard to grasp, that there are billions of us now polluting the earth, and that just maybe doing so is causing harm? Is it really that unreasonable to think that?





So what thermometers were they using over the past 1500 years?




I have no idea how climate scientist figure this out, I guess that is why they studied it and I did not. I also don't understand, nor do I want to, Carbon Dating, that can go back 10,000s of years.




Let me tell you how they figure it out, they pull it out of their azz.

Basically, they look at indicators to get an idea of how hot or cold it may be. While this may be directionally correct, it isn't all that accurate. A tree ring or ice core or some other natural indicator isn't going to tell you temperate to decimal points. So the scientist attempt to "smooth" the data to make it what they think it ought to be.

Not surprisingly, when the smooth this data it always seems to support global warming and they never want to share the "base line" data or methodology.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
New term " Climatic Variation" I heard that covers everything not covered by climate change. Now civilizations that died out thousands of years ago its because of Climate Change. They need to get over the hoax.




posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi


It seems that NASA's animation is in direct opposition from what their satellites are showing. Please see my earlier post.



Are the satellites lying?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Look at the anomaly for this summer:

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...

Why is NASA ignoring this? I mean the animation you show is no where near close to reality.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The animation shown doesn't show 2017. Wait till 2018 and there will be one with the 2017 animation that reflects the ice thickness.

Also, it looks like you don't understand your own pictures in your link.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Here is the thing, sea ice depends upon melting ice at the poles. If the poles are more frozen then less sea ice. Or is there something about ice I don't understand?

PS, I meant last summer in the post above. My apologies.
edit on 8-8-2017 by Fools because: demon rats



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: kurthall

On the one hand, this is the coolest summer I've felt in years.

On the other hand, I just moved outside of the city... and every morning on my commute in, I notice about 2-3 miles outside of the city it suddenly gets warm- enough so that I need to put on the AC that I didn't need for the previous 20 miles.

Maybe it's just the lack of trees, and surplus of black rooftops, driveways, roads, and parking lots sucking up the sun.

This has been researched and debated to death. The affect is very small, even if you ignored it. Below:
grist.org - ‘Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect’...

The abstract from a research study Sep 2003:
journals.ametsoc.org - Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States...

All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of ob- servation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/ rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.

edit on 8/8/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
If it contradicts what Trump says then it MUST be bogus. He knows things other people don't know. He's always right and he never lies.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You're missing the point; it's not about climate change/variation happening, it's about the notion mankind can DO anything about it!

History has evidenced climate change on a global scale for millions upon millions of years. Mankind has only been on this planet for a tiny fraction of this time, yet it's still been happening...and will continue to happen for a billion years after we're gone!

Where the problem begins, is trying to con mankind into believing we have even one ounce of influence over it. We don't! !! And taxing corporations and people out of their hard earned money does absolutely ZERO to effect any change other than make them wealthy, funded or have a job...and everyone else poor!

That...is the point!



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

We are already changing the climate unintentionally. We already have changed the topography, coastlines, ect..

To say we cannot do anything about the changes we have caused is lazy rational.

I have never mentioned a carbon tax, nor do I think it will fix anything. We need an intellectual revolution not more taxes.b



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

When are people going to realize scientists all over the world are actually right and the ones who deny AGW are grossly informed(gullible) or have a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.

It is cute that the science denying crowds uses names like chicken littles, fear mongerors, or cult followers when the sad reality is the ones who won't accept the science due to clever campaigns of doubt and disinfo or the ones behaving in cult like fashion.


You forget that it's Climate change now, if you want to add the, 'A' that's okay, that's what you are meant to do..just imply. The rationale for that is obviously to appeal to conscience, when it is pretty clear that man's part is pretty damn minor along with all the other species of animals..that's not to say that we can do better, in many ways, but that's actually another story.


(post by yuppa removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   


A simple look at the revenue streams of the major proponents of this Global SCAM should convince even the most uninformed they are being taken for the biggest "ride" in human history!!!


That's ridiculous compared to how much money all the businesses and business people make that are against global warming.

Besides, governments pay for climate research because it's important, not because scientists are extorting money out them or some other bogus, retarded and completely imaginary argument that you conservatives invented just because you're selfish, greedy, immature liars.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
May I present evidence to the contrary.

Here is 1980 compared to 2012. Take a good look at 2012. It was the summer that many anti-global warming scientist said would be the last year of "warming" due to pending sun cycles.



Below is most recent arctic ice map. Seems there is more ice now than there was even in 1980, but trending in the reverse from 2012 for sure.



Also, there has been significant ice and snow in Greenland all summer. Even a record low set for July.

If you live in a temperate location there is no sense of saying this summer is hotter or colder than last summer or whatever precisely because you live in a temperate zone. Temperatures always fluctuate in these places drastically. And of course this is where alot of human beings live.

Anyway, I hope those maps from satellites help you understand that there is not at the moment a trend in the arctic toward warming. It is currently toward cooling.

Maps found here:
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...

That last picture is very strange, because this is what Hudson Bay looked like more than a week ago - the vast majority of ice had melted.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
Look at the anomaly for this summer:

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...

Why is NASA ignoring this? I mean the animation you show is no where near close to reality.

Uh pretty sure that completely straight line vertical then horizontal means whatever this image is getting its information from is broken.

I mean that's kind of obvious, aside from actual photos all through the last week in this thread show vastly different sea ice coverage than what that website claims.

Sorry but your source is, quite literally, broken.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join