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.

 

Dead of winter temps at poles rising

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

I posted a link to this earlier.

When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.

But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.


The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.


They lied it would seem, which is why I linked to the New York Times article earlier. You missed it I think.




posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Greven

No a small percentage of it is us and the rest is natural. The highest number I've seen is what I posted earlier.

The rest of what is natural? Unless it's embedded in a link, I don't see what number you posted.

CO2 levels prior to 1850 were below 300ppm. CO2 levels are now over 400ppm. This continues to increase annually, and that increase is less than the amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere.

It's simple math:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), 2011 annual mean: 390.44 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2012 annual mean: 392.45 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2011 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,053.4498 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2012 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,069.1691 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 15.7193 Gt

We also know about how much CO2 is produced by burning fuel, and about how much we burn each year:
Coal: 0.093303951 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 153,000,000,000 million Btu in 2012 = 14,275,504,503 tonnes of CO2 = ~14 Gt of CO2
Oil: 0.071304721 (lowest type ratio) tonnes CO2/million Btu * 90 million barrels per day * 365 * 5.8 million Btu/barrel = 13,585,688,492 tonnes of CO2 = ~13 Gt CO2
Combined: 27 Gt CO2/yr

Never mind other sources; you can see human CO2 emissions exceed the atmospheric increase in CO2 with those two alone.

It's all physics and math. There are certainly unknowns, because we don't know everything - but we do know how CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases interact with radiation. We also have reasonable estimates for our fuel consumption and good estimates for emissions from said consumption of fuel.

Oh, and we're adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere these days.
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2016 annual mean: 402.81ppm
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 404.92ppm
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase: 16.5013 Gt

That's actually down from the previous two years, too.

I mean, we even have O2 trends. These show a decline in oxygen levels, because we've been burning carbon which chemically fixes it to oxygen:

edit on 21Thu, 01 Mar 2018 21:12:05 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I was talking about how much humans contribute to the CO2 compared to what's from natural causes. I thought I had posted that, but I was wrong, sorry about that. It's between 3 and 4% according to an EPA report, with natural causes being responsible for the rest.

The climate would be in a constant state of change whether we existed or not. We may accelerate things or slow them down with our actions, but still they would change over time.

You know I was taught in college in early 70's that all trees above the Canadian US border would be dead before now. Science likes to use scare tactics to secure research money by scaring the public and after you figure it out it's hard to trust. Science is not pure or even right from generation to generation. We should be talking about adapting no matter the cause instead of arguing over science that may laughable 50 years from now as it has been in the past.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Our planet is wobbling on its axis due to the gravitational effects of Planet X. Have you noticed the sun and moon are also out of position? This will only intensify as we progress.



posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: DrumsRfun
a reply to: wantsome

Last year was terrible for ice fishing and this year hasn't been much better.
We get extreme cold and than a thaw,more cold and more thawing,so the ice isn't too safe.

Our area got hit with a major flood last spring from the thaw and rain and I kind of expect that to become the norm in the future.
With all the flooding from last spring...last summers fishing was AMAZING!!
Best year I ever had.

I have noticed crazy weather my whole life so I never really think about climate change much.




Don't everyone get too excited about "global warming". It was only a few short years ago in 2014 the great lakes tied or broke pretty much every freezing/frozen record.



The Gales of November came early?




posted on Mar, 2 2018 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
a reply to: wantsome

I'm in Il. been one of the coldest and wettest in about 5 years or it's just me, i'll have to actually look at some more numbers here.. but a month of - degree weather and a lot more snowfall// perhaps I just had 1 too many after work and am just sick of winter.. It's so depressing



The freezing rain was the worst.

Slick roads.

Studs and 4-Wdrive barely helped.

I feel for ya bro.

I don't miss it but IL has the most awesome weather.








posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Greven

I was talking about how much humans contribute to the CO2 compared to what's from natural causes. I thought I had posted that, but I was wrong, sorry about that. It's between 3 and 4% according to an EPA report, with natural causes being responsible for the rest.

The climate would be in a constant state of change whether we existed or not. We may accelerate things or slow them down with our actions, but still they would change over time.

You know I was taught in college in early 70's that all trees above the Canadian US border would be dead before now. Science likes to use scare tactics to secure research money by scaring the public and after you figure it out it's hard to trust. Science is not pure or even right from generation to generation. We should be talking about adapting no matter the cause instead of arguing over science that may laughable 50 years from now as it has been in the past.


Saying humans are responsible for only 3-4% of CO2 emissions is factual, yet it's also misleading.

For example, plants are carbon-based lifeforms, and as such, plants need oxygen to breathe. When any carbon-based organism respires, it emits carbon dioxide (P+). Fortunately, plants also photosynthesize, and their collective CO2 output is roughly half of what their collective CO2 intake is (P- = (P+ * 2)).

The oceans also emit carbon dioxide due to various processes (O+), but they too take up more CO2 from the atmosphere than they release to the atmosphere - albeit only around 2% more (O- = (O+ * 1.02)). Oceans emit approximately 50% more CO2 than plants (O+ = (P+ * 1.5)).

Various life and other chemical processes on land release more CO2 than they consume, which is almost equivalent to the net CO2 removed from the atmosphere by plants and the oceans (L+ = (P- + O-) * 0.995).

Volcanic eruptions on average are included in land release (L+), but make up only a small portion of CO2 emissions (V+ = (P- + O+) * 0.001). However, some massive eruptions in the distant past emitted far more CO2 for a brief period - perhaps ten to twenty times the annual average for thousands of years. These eruptions dated geologically correspond well to increased CO2 levels, but also to mass extinction events in the fossil record.

You can see from this that we have a small buffer for human CO2 emissions, where CO2 levels would remain nearly static (B = ((P- + O-) - L+)). However, human emissions are not included in this calculation. The addition of human CO2 emissions is rather significant - they're approximately 1/10th of what all plants on Earth combined emit (H+ = (P+ * 0.1)).

This is where we have a problem, because human emissions greatly exceed that buffer (H+ > B):
H+ = (P+ * 0.1)
P+ = (H+ * 10)
P- = (P+ * 2) = ((H+ * 10) * 2) = (H+ * 20)
O+ = (P+ * 1.5)) = ((H+ * 10) * 1.5) = (H+ * 30)
O- = (O+ * 0.98) = ((H+ * 30) * 1.02) = (H+ * 30.6)
L+ = (P- + O-) * 0.995) = (((H+ * 20) + (H+ * 30.6)) * 0.995) = ((H+ * 50.6) * 0.995) = (H+ * 50.347)
B = (P- + O-) - L+)) = ((H+ * 50.6) - (H+ * 50.347)) = ((H+ * 0.253))
H+ > B = H+ > (H+ * 0.253)

As you can see, our emissions are exceeding the buffer by nearly 400%, despite only making up about 4% of total (natural and human) annual CO2 emissions.

There is some elasticity in where CO2 goes, as our emissions don't increase atmospheric levels at the same rate as we emit CO2, but we can clearly see through tracking atmospheric CO2 levels that total CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing at a rate of over +0.5%/yr.
edit on 10Sat, 03 Mar 2018 10:19:01 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: removed repetition

edit on 10Sat, 03 Mar 2018 10:49:05 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: corrected CO2 rate of increase

edit on 10Sat, 03 Mar 2018 10:53:24 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: corrected equation



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I understand what's being said and why, I just don't think that economically destructive means are needed and in fact they will backfire in the end. Only money can fix problems, only private industry can create solutions and without R&D money from profits from current technology can anything meaningful be done.

Look at that atrocity of an agreement they had going before they peeled back the camouflage and thankfully we got out of it. China lied and activists help with that nonsense. China will take the most profitable course no matter what's being said. We keep taking steps forward and the world answers by saying pay us to do the right thing, all of which leads to talk and more talk.

I think the doom and gloom have been highly exaggerated to stimulate research funding and institutions and people who profit from that. What's needed are not pie in the sky, we can switch to renewable, clean everything right now nonsense presented in this collaboration between science clawing for money and politicians.
edit on 3/3/2018 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Greven

I understand what's being said and why, I just don't think that economically destructive means are needed and in fact they will backfire in the end. Only money can fix problems, only private industry can create solutions and without R&D money from profits from current technology can anything meaningful be done.

Look at that atrocity of an agreement they had going before they peeled back the camouflage and thankfully we got out of it. China lied and activists help with that nonsense. China will take the most profitable course no matter what's being said. We keep taking steps forward and the world answers by saying pay us to do the right thing, all of which leads to talk and more talk.

I think the doom and gloom have been highly exaggerated to stimulate research funding and institutions and people who profit from that. What's needed are not pie in the sky, we can switch to renewable, clean everything right now nonsense presented in this collaboration between science clawing for money and politicians.

I don't really think you do understand. Let's even set aside what CO2 will do to the atmosphere as it rises for the moment, and just talk about what CO2 will do directly to people.

Consider this study: Health effects of increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (PDF):

The estimated toxic level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere under lifetime exposure is 426 ppm
...
At a carbon dioxide concentration of 600 ppm in an indoor atmosphere, the occupants become aware of deterioration in the atmosphere. At and above this level, some occupants began to display one or more of the classic symptoms of carbon dioxide poisoning, e.g. difficulty in breathing, rapid pulse rate, headache, hearing loss, hyperventilation, sweating and fatigue. At 1000 ppm, nearly all the occupants were affected. These effects were observed in humans with only a transient exposure to an atmosphere containing increased levels of carbon dioxide and not a lifetime exposure.

By the time CO2 reaches 600 ppm, we'll be suffering carbon dioxide poisoning; however, it only gets noticeable a bit later.

Now, notice that the lifetime exposure estimate is 426 ppm; 2017 averaged 404.92 ppm and the average was 390.44 ppm only 6 years prior, in 2011. Over those 6 years, atmospheric CO2 levels increased 2.41 ppm per year. This suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels of 426 ppm is less than 9 years away - 9 years until permanent, but initially slow, toxic exposure.

That 426 ppm estimate is somewhat new; transient 600 ppm CO2 levels being where we start to experience discomfort is rather well-known.

We will not adapt to that naturally; unless we start sealing ourselves away in purified containers, being poisoned by carbon dioxide is the future. 600 ppm sounds far off, but that's only 80 years away with our current rate of growth in atmospheric CO2. It's certainly possible that this rate increases, given it's only been increasing, but it could decrease.

On the other hand, there are a lot of natural sources that may stop offsetting our emissions - our current emissions are estimated to be almost double the amount that increases annually. That would increase the rate alone. Worse, it's possible that we've set in motion additional natural releases of CO2 beyond the current levels of natural emissions.

For example, there is more carbon trapped in permafrost than exists in the atmosphere - substantially more. Most permafrost is in the Arctic. Permafrost will melt and release carbon as it warms, and the Arctic is warming far beyond anywhere else on the planet. The northernmost city in Alaska (71°), formerly called Barrow and since renamed once more to Utqiaġvik, saw average temperatures from December 2017 through February 2018 of +1.8°F. Not average highs - average daily temperatures. From 1920 to 2015, this average was never above -5°F. Last year, it was about -2.5°F. This is a place where it is night for two months straight.

There are many other examples of a warming Arctic. Recall, I am ignoring what CO2 does to the atmosphere in this particular post. The Arctic is undoubtedly getting warmer; satellite measurements from Dr. Roy Spencer over at UAH suggest double the rate of the planet as a whole. Multiyear ice is rapidly disintegrating. Certain ships are now traveling through the Arctic during winter. This will lead to even more carbon in the form of methane or carbon dioxide being released.



posted on Mar, 3 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555




Look at that atrocity of an agreement they had going before they peeled back the camouflage and thankfully we got out of it.
Yeah. Good thing we got out of a multilateral agreement which had nothing but voluntary goals for emissions reductions.

We showed them.

edit on 3/3/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Have you read the details of it?

Follow the money and note how many times in the text it refers to financial and support responsibilities. It was a welfare program for poor countries and you don't actually think even a small fraction of the money would actually go to the intended purpose?

Criticizing a bad agreement is not the same as being anti-environment.



posted on Mar, 5 2018 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555



1. Parties recognize that some Parties choose to pursue voluntary cooperation in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions to allow for higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity.

Art. 6

Socialists and their wellfare!!!oneoneeleven

Err... what?

Let me sum up that bunch of sidenotes:
zero responsibility, no vision on how to proceed and not a single clue why the Arctic is heating up. Duly noted.



new topics




 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join