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.

 

Bad news for Climate Change.

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Wow, I am confused now. So where did the water go from the melting glaciers, and how are we having sea level rise now? I get that floating ice melt won't change the sea level anymore than ice in a glass wouldn't, but in my trying to reason this out, I just can't quite understand the dynamics of this.

And yes, it's fantastic news for me if it's true, but for all those who are heavily invested in the 97% settled science, it's bad for business. I have been hoping things aren't as bad as predicted since I first heard about all this. Even it it's frowned upon.




posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
What's confusing?


The water from melting glaciers went into the ocean. Net glacial melting slowed and stopped when the rapid temperature rise at the end of glacial period leveled off.
edit on 4/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Scientists used to be skeptics.

I still would adhere to that description.


I am a skeptic all day and a Scientist for my living. Show me unaltered data that is outside of the Confidence Limits and I will agree with the Global alarmist. Those thinking puny man can fix it.

All we can really fix is if we drink Arsenic, Lead or Mercury or not from our taps, if we live in a landfill or if we let trash fly out of our hands without picking it up.

The climate has always been very largely driven by the Sun and the Earths reaction to changes on and in the Sun, period. Quit supporting the alarmist. If we quit feeding them they will go find food elsewhere hopefully quietly.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




The climate has always been very largely driven by the Sun and the Earths reaction to changes on and in the Sun, period.


What about the Sun has changed? Has it gotten hotter in the past 100 years? Is it emitting more radiation?
edit on 4/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ManFromEurope


The enviroment was different in the 70s. We had acid rain, heavy polutions.

Yes, we did. Like the pollutants created by catalytic converters.

The fuels at the time contained much more sulfur than they do today. So in our zeal to get rid of smog (nitrates, nitrides, and particulates) we decided every car had to have this amazing new device. Unfortunately, we discovered after the zeal had worn off that the catalytic converters could not handle the sulfur content of fuels and would start putting out large amounts of SO2 after a while. SO2 in the presence of solar energy and water tends to undergo a few minor chemical adjustments to become H2SO4, better known as sulfuric acid... or acid rain, depending on whether or not the plants were dying all around you.

Of course, we finally managed to ease the problem we created, after years of regulations and research trying to figure out how to get the sulfur out before we turned forests into wastelands.

I wonder what the next "acid rain" will be, since so many people seem to want to leap headfirst into this Global Warming scam?

TheRedneck


While mostly true about the H2SO4 the real culprit were stacks burning coal in all the buildings. Now that is centralized with a main power plant the scrubs the NO2 and SO2 out. My sampling for acid rain went from pH 4.5 thirty years back to a nearly neutral pH of 6-7.0 when we shut it down two years ago. Orders of magnitude better and proving that we can engineer things cleaner.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

temperatures still increased. they were off from the predictions but it STILL went up.



posted on Apr, 27 2018 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Something like 90% of Canada still snow covered 2 weeks ago and low Gulf Stream activity, along with two 100yr cold records could mean a bad winter of 2018-19.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


While mostly true about the H2SO4 the real culprit were stacks burning coal in all the buildings.

Absolutely correct! One of coal's greatest 'sins' is having so much impurity, including sulfur. That, plus the fact that it is mostly carbon instead of hydrocarbons, is why it has such a 'dirty' reputation. Even back when I was young, we rarely burnt coal because of that... it smelled, it was hard to ignite, and it burned pretty hot for residential use. Dad used to use it for his homemade forge to heat metal, and occasionally in the garage (his workshop) during unusually cold weather.

Come to think of it, I have never found anything that stated what percentage of acid rain production was attributed to coal plants and what was attributed to catalytic converters. I know that both were responsible, but I guess I just always assumed the catalytic converters were the primary culprit because of the timing. Not a good thing for me to do, in hindsight!

Do you happen to have any data on that?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude
What's confusing?


The water from melting glaciers went into the ocean. Net glacial melting slowed and stopped when the rapid temperature rise at the end of glacial period leveled off.


so when the melt was happening, did the levels go up? and what is causing the current rise?



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




The climate has always been very largely driven by the Sun and the Earths reaction to changes on and in the Sun, period.


What about the Sun has changed? Has it gotten hotter in the past 100 years? Is it emitting more radiation?


Could you look any more foolish than you do when you ask that 1st question? The sun constantly changes and you damn well know it.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: network dude

temperatures still increased. they were off from the predictions but it STILL went up.


Maybe not, the temperature records are suspect do to cheating for the agenda like the 97% lie on approving scientist and placement of probe issue documented for literally years on ATS.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Justoneman


While mostly true about the H2SO4 the real culprit were stacks burning coal in all the buildings.

Absolutely correct! One of coal's greatest 'sins' is having so much impurity, including sulfur. That, plus the fact that it is mostly carbon instead of hydrocarbons, is why it has such a 'dirty' reputation. Even back when I was young, we rarely burnt coal because of that... it smelled, it was hard to ignite, and it burned pretty hot for residential use. Dad used to use it for his homemade forge to heat metal, and occasionally in the garage (his workshop) during unusually cold weather.

Come to think of it, I have never found anything that stated what percentage of acid rain production was attributed to coal plants and what was attributed to catalytic converters. I know that both were responsible, but I guess I just always assumed the catalytic converters were the primary culprit because of the timing. Not a good thing for me to do, in hindsight!

Do you happen to have any data on that?

TheRedneck


you bet
news.illinois.edu...
That sums it up quite nicely I believe.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Oh, I see exactly what is before my eyes. Do you?

Do you know how spectral absorption works?

Do you understand black body radiation principles?

Do you understand acidification processes?

Or do you just listen to the reporter on the news who tells you what he thinks scientists say while having no idea why they are saying what they're saying?

True science is not listening to others. True science is based on the core principle of questioning assumptions made by others. The second you start to accept what anyone else says without questioning it yourself based on your own knowledge and research, you abandon the scientific method and science itself.

TheRedneck


Which you are so right on this matter. There are so many giving it over to the talking heads on the boob tube to educate them and the agenda wins them over as tools. Thank God so many are waking up. I suspect the lies and spin against some facts that are indisputable will do that for us.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

"Gulf Stream slowing down, researchers say. The change, if true, has major implications for our climate."






posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude





and I am confused by your reply. You seem to agree with TrueBrit that Americans are stoopid and know nothing of science, yet you are making excuses for the articles findings. Which is it?

truebrit doesn't think ALL americans are stupid just that some are and I agree. At least I hope he doesn't.

Some of the information in the article is accurate. It's the interpretation of that data that is the issue.



One would have to be flaming idiot to believe like True Brit. He conflates the .001% lunatics, running everything, with 'the rest of us'. Common sense is not common anymore and Tru brit lacks a lot of it at this point. Or is a shill for Al Gore, take your pick.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

It means here in the UK we will get weather like Canada and Siberia.
I love the snow so I'm happy
.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude

Those numbers while smaller still mean big problems for the human race.

Also are you taking in to account that much has been done to slow down climate change and that those higher numbers reflected an reality where nothing would have been done?

If anything I would think that it's our acceptance of man made climate change that has caused us to change our ways and limit the speed at which we pollute the earth.

Or at least we did limit our pollution until trump showed up.

I am not a trump hater but I do think changing environmental laws just so your rich friends can make even more money is real dick move. It's the main reason I will not be voting for him in 2020.



No.

Those higher numbers were grossly negligent over exaggerations. As evidenced by total failure of everything in Al Gore's movie to actually happen.

And what exactly has China or India done to reduce pollution? Any reduction in pollution by the US and Europe is far outweighed by the planet's biggest contributors there.

Global warming is big wealth redistribution scam.


While I don't disagree with much of what you said.

The pollution habitat problem is real.

The solutions are also real and technology based.


You are right. I posted earlier in this thread the thought that our habitat is what we are pooping in. The animals do adapt and the Earth will forget us by turning us to dust when we are dead.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

"Gulf Stream is slowing down faster than ever, scientists say.
Scientists believe that huge volumes of freshwater flowing into the North Atlantic from the rapidly melting icecap of Greenland have slowed down the ocean 'engine' that drives the Gulf Stream to the Caribbean towards North-West Europe, bringing heat equivalent to the output of a million power stations."


www.independent.co.uk...



"Gulf Stream slowing down, researchers say."


weather.com...
edit on 28-4-2018 by Erno86 because: added link



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: luthier

ty luthier.
www.natlawreview.com...

I don't know why he wants us to do the work instead of just taking 5 min to google it for himself.


That one appears to be stating that you are not 'always in' compliance once you meet it. We should not keep them always in compliance if they are not should we?

I work with, not for, the EPA and the last set of rules were too harsh on many levels. They lowered the value for acceptable range against a lot of the Environmental Scientist recommendation to hold pat as we were doing very well through requiring BACT (Best Available Control Tech) in every renewed or new permit. Then the news declares ( with much cleaner air similar to pre industrial revolution) that there are days where it is ' the worst air quality ever' quite a lot. The worst air quality was in the 1950's and ended when the EPA formed in the 70's.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: scraedtosleep


I don't know why he wants us to do the work instead of just taking 5 min to google it for himself.

Because I don't see any sense in spending time to look up unsubstantiated claims. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for the OIAI policy...

There have been no associated changes to pollution emission requirements. All the removal of OIAI did was to remove a requirement that did not take into account changes in a factory's ability to produce pollutive emissions. A factory classified as a major source is not automatically downgraded to a local source; a local source which exceeds thresholds is still upgraded to a major source. Without OIAI, a factory that was once classified as a major source may, if it meets qualifications, be downgraded to a local source. OIAI prohibited that, even if the factory in question had changed its potential for pollution.

Why would anyone even try to improve their pollution classification and reduce pollution beyond the bare minimum required by law if the law didn't at least recognize the efforts?

Thus there has been no additional pollution emitted over the policy change. Thus, this policy change does not meet the criteria of increasing pollution.

TheRedneck


This argument is incredibly disengenous. One the data collecting and enforcement has been severely changed and two we wouldn't know the effects until the data is gathered and analyzed.

When trump talks about saving the 60k coal jobs this let's me know he is using idiology and not reason in these instances.

Now was Obama out of line with the speed and scope of regulating that is certainly possible. However, we are in serious trouble whether or not you believe in climate change as drinking, fresh, and salt water are under massive assault to cause harm to the habitats we need to survive.

The question should be the way we change not that we need to. We need more people designing things to clean the ocean not demanding we stop using technology. More people finding out how to manufacture plastics to biodegrade and be reusable not stopping the use of plastic.

Of coarse if we do that we can't complain and divide as easy during elections.


You are incorrect and Redneck is right on this one. We have made the changes to improve air and water quality even if not perfect all the time, as have Europe. The Asian, Africa, India and S America country's are allowed to and are polluting, raping the land, and like we did in N America 100 years ago cutting all the forests down.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join