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.

 

Harvey, now proof that AGW is real? Stupid GOP.

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

worst flood IN RECENT YEARS? Does that mean that bad floods have occurred before? Why, that kind of goes against the narrative. If you believe that bad floods have occurred in the past, what horrific things were done by humans to cause them?

Maybe we don't have all the answers quite yet.




posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change

As we’ve said, it’s inaccurate to say that climate change is the cause of Harvey, which dumped a record 50 inches of rain on southern Texas over four days.

But scientists have said that Harvey was likely worsened by climate change for a few reasons.

Michael Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State, pointed to at least three factors that likely affected Harvey — higher sea levels, warmer ocean waters and weak prevailing winds — in an article published in the Guardian on Aug. 28.

Sea level rise contributes to higher storm surges, explains Mann. Higher storm surges then lead to more coastal flooding, he says.

Warmer waters, on the other hand, lead to increased moisture in the atmosphere, which “creates the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding,” Mann explains. “The combination of coastal flooding and heavy rainfall is responsible for the devastating flooding that Houston is experiencing.”

Though “more tenuous” than the other two factors, says Mann, Harvey also may have stalled near the coast because of weak prevailing winds that failed “to steer the storm off to sea.” This stalling then led to continued heavy rainfall on Texas that eventually topped 50 inches.

The weak prevailing winds are caused by a “greatly expanded subtropical high pressure system” currently over much of the U.S., which is “predicted in model simulations of human-caused climate change,” says Mann.

Scientists say other storms were likely made worse by climate change as well.

Since ATS can no longer format replies correctly, what I did was to bold every time your article mentioned "likely", which they did before every statement. even your scientists aren't sure right now, which has been my stance for quite a while, though calling me a denier and saying something stupid like stick my head in the sand is easier than debating facts. derp.

You realize that science doesn't proclaim things as definite when it comes to the future right? That's what a margin of error is for. "Likely" is just an easier to comprehend way to explain this without getting into the numbers and making the average layperson confused. You really need to brush up on the scientific method.

And you totally stick your head in the sand over this issue. You bend over backwards to disbelieve this science. You put SOOOO much effort into confirming your bias, but never actually study the science to see if the rhetoric you are spewing is actually a legit argument.
edit on 31-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

and you really need to try to understand reality. Reality is that we don't have enough information to know enough about all this to state what is or isn't the cause. There are a lot of factors involved that have not been looked at, due to them not being known at this time. Which is why you see the words "likely" instead of "definitely". Some people have enough sense to grasp that this is still a new thing with lots of unanswered questions. Others cling to the partisan rhetoric due to stupidity and short vision.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
And you totally stick your head in the sand over this issue. You bend over backwards to disbelieve this science. You put SOOOO much effort into confirming your bias, but never actually study the science to see if the rhetoric you are spewing is actually a legit argument.


And yet you just aren't quite smart enough to understand the last sentence in the OP. how sad. derp.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

OH WOWZERS! You said it might be something, but then you immediately prove that you know nothing about it by saying that harvey had no relation to it. Well baby steps I guess. Too bad harvey didn't slap you in the face and wake you up like it should have, but I'll take the small victory.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Yeah, let's simply forget that we see such storms way more often, too. Just another big one, nothing to see there either. Must be a simple coincidence then! Right. We're so smart, eh?

#Deny,deny,deny

I don't say it's aliens, but it's definitely another universe.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

WTF do you mean more often? we have just had the longest period on record of NO big hurricanes.

I realize it makes you all feel special when you can point to something and say "see, that's proof right there", but you can't do that, and then say that super cold winters are just arbitrary and have nothing to do with the current warming.

I don't have the answers. I understand that. What baffles me is that you all seem to think you have some special knowledge and you DO have all the answers. What percentage EXACTLY is man responsible for the current warming trend?



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
but I'll take the small victory.


you do that champ. Put it next to all your participation trophies.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The next big hurricane will happen around 2022 and people will again complain it's caused by CO2. Same old. Same old. Rinse. Repeat.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




I don't have the answers. I understand that. What baffles me is that you all seem to think you have some special knowledge and you DO have all the answers. What percentage EXACTLY is man responsible for the current warming trend?


Open up a book and stop bull#ting the kids with stupid percentages, hows that for starters?



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Singswithchickens
a reply to: network dude

I wonder how many American cities have to be destroyed?

How many new flood walls/gates need to be constructed in Florida?

How long will the talking point of "I'm not a scientist,but" holds so much water???


Might be just after folks realize that with or without AGW, Climate change, mean weather, the seas have been rising since the ending of the last ice age. But don't listen to me, I'm not a scientist.


Actual Scientists are telling us that man is causing the earth to warm in an accelerated cycle, irregardless of any natural cycle we may or may not be in. We can do lot's of things to reduce greenhouse gasses and emissions which we know effect our climate. We can also do lot's of things to mitigate damage from storms like this one, by changing how and where we build.

The really funny thing is that everything that we could do to combat or engage climate change and it's effects is really good for the planet, our health and our economy. Except the carbon tax, we definitely don't need more taxes, but everything else is good.


What if.....I really am not ready to fully invest in man caused warming, but I totally agree with everything you want to do? Does that still make me a denier and the enemy? It's comical that most (I'd wager) who don't believe in MMGW, still care about the environment, the planet, and the people who will inhabit it after us. But if we don't say the words, it's "denier!". I guess division is what they told us to do, so being the good sheep I am.....


See that is the problem. We should be more concerned with actions that benefit us all.

Sometimes the barrier to that is that certain states employees aren't allowed to use terms like Climate Change and Sea level rise, making it really hard to have a discussion about sea walls and changing building codes and upgrading sewer systems etc. We have to at least be able to discuss these things before most people will take any action.

The other problem is that I might say, "Because of Climate change and sea level rise we need to change the building code so that..." and the other person says. "There is no Climate change." And we just go back and forth without ever discussing the building code.

Half the people on this thread, alone, don't even think there would be any negative effects IF the climate got any warmer or changes drastically in some other way.


And if you approached the same issue by showing historical data from the last 30,000 years showing how the seas have rising at a steady pace, you would accomplish the same thing, but leave AGW out of it for now. If the folks who push so hard for AGW/CC, would realize that some of the facts brought up by non-believers are actual true, they might find that better ways to communicate with each other exist. You don't win a prize for converting a non believer, and you still need to get things done. It's like the believers are purposely not comprehending human nature.


That leads to an interesting problem. Everything I say on these threads I get either directly from a scientist, a scientific article quoting a scientist or a scientific paper or a scientific organization like NASA.

Most people, not you, that post a contrary or angry response are quoting a republican blog or news pundit.

I see the same things on the Anti Vax threads, people have concerns with vaccines and are labeled antivaxxers and literrally destroyed on these threads for not getting their information directly from Scientists, scientific articles, or scientifi organizations.

I see the same thing with the we never went to the moon threads. The Evolution Vs Creationism threads.

Why is it okay to question Scientists about Man Made Global Warming but not okay to question scientists about vaccines, Evolution or the moon landing?
edit on 31-8-2017 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

In science we based everything on experiment. If you can build another Earth and do experiment with it, and present your findings, then everyone will accept it. If you can built another world trade center and crash a plane into it and show that the tower does not fall, it would proof the world trade center was destroyed by demolition.

Without experiment to back it, CO2 theory is not accepted by everyone and you can't force them to accept it.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: tannerc
a reply to: amazing

In science we based everything on experiment. If you can build another Earth and do experiment with it, and present your findings, then everyone will accept it. If you can built another world trade center and crash a plane into it and show that the tower does not fall, it would proof the world trade center was destroyed by demolition.

Without experiment to back it, CO2 theory is not accepted by everyone and you can't force them to accept it.


But Scientists do lot's of experiments. Google.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
THEN CNN tried to tie it CLIMATE CHANGE...www.theblaze.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Harvey is not caused by CO2. That's not to say CO2 is not a bad gas. It is. CO2 is heavy and displaces oxygen and dumbs people down.

www.co2.earth...



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I find it funny with this Houston situation, how many lefties came out and say see, climate change is real!

Of course it's real, numnutz.

Does anyone understand history? Antartica and Egypt both used to be lush and green.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   


A real weather scientist explains to a CNN anchor why this storm isn't about climate change. But I'm sure the armchair meteorologists here know more than this guy.



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The art of man-made fiction .... after 142 months without a major (cat 3+) hitting the USA ... if it is because of AGW ... has about much validation as those who claim God did it to Texas because they are racist, islamophobic, climate denial ... Frankly you all make Pat Robertson look somewhat sane.

I wish you the best of luck blowing in the same prophetic wind ...
edit on 1-9-2017 by fnpmitchreturns because: caps



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

This is certainly an argument with respect to this particular storm in terms of increased moisture in the atmosphere leads to a greater rainfall than expected.

When you consider the amount of rain that has fallen in Texas you can't simply dismiss this argument - which is of course not the same as saying climate change causes hurricanes (which would be nonsense).



posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'd have to ask then, what caused the severity of storms in the 1800's? There were a few of them, and they were certainly quite aggressive.

The climate scientists, the same ones who say things like what you mentioned, have been saying that AGW will cause more hurricanes and stronger storms. Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case.


It’s been nearly 12 years, or 4,253 days, since the last major hurricane made landfall in the U.S., which is the longest such period on record.

link to source


You can't really compare storms from the 1800s in that many areas were new to mass settlement. In simple terms, people at that stage didn't know where was safer to build, etc. They also didn't have long range weather forecasts, satellite data and the like. These factors all lead to greater damage and loss of life.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join