It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But that we are doing insane things to the environment do not prove that letting out CO2 is a problem.
For me to take the scientist and politicians serious they need to come with facts.
Only going after CO2 seems like it is a calculated move by some very greedy people.
"For the third year in a row, the earth in 2016 hit record heat --- Threat to society and nature is rising --- Scale of shift startles scientists --- It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row.
The heat extremes were especially pervasive in the Arctic, with temperatures in the fall running 20 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit above normal across large stretches of the Arctic Ocean. Sea ice in that region has been precipitous decline for years, and Arctic communities are already wrestling with enormous problems, such as rapid coastal erosion, caused by the changing climate.
In fact, the global warming rate over time has been reasonably close to predictions that scientists first offered decades ago. Those same scientists have long warned that humanity is courting disaster by failing to bring fossil-fuel emissions under control.
For example, many experts on sea level believe that a rise of 15 or 20 feet has already become inevitable, though they cannot say how fast it will happen. A rise that large would drown most of the world's coastal cities without heroic efforts to fortify them."
"About 40 years ago, the earth's surface temperatures began to break out of their recent historical range and just kept climbing.
Not coincidentally, the number of storms with extreme rainfall began to increase about the same time.
The main reason these storms seem to be more frequent is global warming.
Irma and Harvey weren't caused by climate change, but they almost certainly would not have been so powerful if the air and the seas fueling them hadn't been so warm.
And the rise of extreme rainstorms isn't limited to hurricanes. 'Heavy precipitation events in most parts of the United States have increased,' says the latest draft of the National Climate Assessment, written by the scientists who are careful not to overclaim. 'There is strong evidence, it continues, 'that increased water vapor resulting form higher temperatures is the primary cause.'
Welcome to the era of extreme rain. We can continue to pretend it's all a coincidence and watch the consequences mount. Or we can start to do something about it --- by using less of the dirty energy that's changing the climate and by preparing for a future that's guaranteed to be hotter and rainier."
originally posted by: netwarrior
a reply to: Justoneman
As a Environmental Scientist
Hello friend! Air quality? Wish you were here. I'd have trouble for you to get into and a lot of it.
I'm not a climatologist. I've spent my career guarding 400 square miles of wetlands and I can honestly say that my water is cleaner now than it was when I got here and that's all I can do, and I'll keep doing it until a contributor gains sufficient political stroke to get rid of me for good. However, the wonderful thing about our field is that it encompasses so many different fields that you get a good understanding of the entire planet as an series of self-regulating feedback loops. When you know a little bit about hydrology, meteorology, geology, and biology you get a pretty good overview of "the big picture."
Climate change is real. I do not deny that humans are responsible at least partially for increasing temperatures. What has not been adequately explained is that many times in our planet's history the CO2/Methane and temperatures have been demonstrably higher without any humans around at all. What also has not been adequately explained is why are specific countries being penalized and forced to shoulder the majority of the burden when the countries responsible for the vast amount of emissions being given a pass to do whatever they want for the next two decades?
Why are politicians and rich people telling me my car doesn't get high enough gas mileage when they take an entire jumbo jet and accompanying crew the next state over to give rallies telling me *I* am not doing enough? GTFO of here with that tripe. Seems to be a lot of the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality. My mother pulled that same with me and the only thing it made me do was ignore her more.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
The science is not perfect. But every year the science gets better and better:
The 97% consensus on global warming
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
For those of us that are not as intelligent with you please explain:
1: AGW - what does the acronym stand for....