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: 11
41
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




I work with, not for, the EPA


Wow your hate for truebrit aside , this is awesome.

So what do you do exactly?




They lowered the value for acceptable range against a lot of the Environmental Scientist recommendation

hmm So do you think this was done because they didn't think it would be done enough unless they exaggerated it?
Like they feel like the companies would lie about how low they actually went, or that the epa just wants things the way THEY want regardless of the science?




posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

"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...


Good point. There are several reasons. The one big one is the volcano's on Greenland melting under the glacier and creating a cold water surge that is pushing back the Gulf stream. If it happens to slow it down much more, we may still get to know what snow is (just like Al Gore warned kids would no longer see), then we might keep going to ice covering great stretches of land again and failed food crops.
edit on 28-4-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Justoneman




I work with, not for, the EPA


Wow your hate for truebrit aside , this is awesome.

So what do you do exactly?




They lowered the value for acceptable range against a lot of the Environmental Scientist recommendation

hmm So do you think this was done because they didn't think it would be done enough unless they exaggerated it?
Like they feel like the companies would lie about how low they actually went, or that the epa just wants things the way THEY want regardless of the science?



I don't hate true brit, I do hope to wake him up to the truth. I call a spade a spade. He has been a fringe nutcase that I can rarely agree on his stances and that should be properly challenged, IMO.


Environmental Scientist, I collect ambient air pollution data, to include Ozone, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead and Acid rain deposition. I analyze the collected data and quality control/assure the data is accurate and verify that the field operators challenges to the instruments are within 'confidence limits' (that confidence is what I keep pointing to in my posts against AGW)
ETA

We also keep up with the temperatures for the monitors and are using instruments that require a 20-30 C range to operate. We have to monitor ambient outside temperature were we collect data for heavy metals like at lead monitoring sites. This is to be able to calculate the data in actual conditions for the most accurate sample collection and analysis.

edit on 28-4-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

So in your research do you have to account for the tech that has been put in place over the last say 10-20 years for cutting co2 levels such as catalytic converters and carbon capture?

Did you read my earlier posts?

Am I way off base suggesting that the levels arn't as high as were predicted because of those technologies?

You said that the epa made the companies perform under the safe level. How much of that do you think contributed to the lower levels we are seeing?



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Justoneman

So in your research do you have to account for the tech that has been put in place over the last say 10-20 years for cutting co2 levels such as catalytic converters and carbon capture?

Did you read my earlier posts?

Am I way off base suggesting that the levels arn't as high as were predicted because of those technologies?

You said that the epa made the companies perform under the safe level. How much of that do you think contributed to the lower levels we are seeing?


Last question first, a hell of a lot and I am NOT for ending it. But we don't need any more is what I am saying. We need to handle each facility the same now. Some states like what Rise reported on the WVa case of contamination of the Kenawa River being a good point. The inspectors weren't doing their jobs properly and the EPA didn't really figure that out in time. Similar in Grand Rapids, people did NOT do their damn job. NO reason for lead pipes there and no reason for acidifying the water without some kind of remediation. A damn shame...

The levels of pollution were designed to go down because of the tech and it is working. Looking the other way in China and India is a big problem now.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   

"Freakishly warm weather in the Arctic has climate scientists 'stunned.'



www.livescience.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I'm speculating that Donald J. Trump and his henchmen...want to stoke the fires of global warming even higher --- come hell or high water --- so as to cause a year round ice free condition for shipping in the Northwest Passage.
edit on 28-4-2018 by Erno86 because: grammar



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yeah, that's the really funny part is that outsourcing the pollution to third world countries part...

Meanwhile the beliebers will tell you, oh no we did so much to stop it that's why things have changed!

When they fail to realize that we increased emissions steeply as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY!

The beliebers have been too stupid this entire time to even ONCE listen to the people saying "hey um why does climate change policy actually increase emissions and look a lot like very unpopular western deindustrialization policy repackaged with environmental responsibility stickers slapped over the original labels?"

Gee imagination that, climate change legislation and the climate change agenda when you look at it real hard bears a striking resemblance to a bunch of the "post colonialist social justice agenda" and the other fun names this crap masquerades under just repackaged again... (I call it the F*** the middle class and kill whitey movement but I get accused of telling things too much like they actually are all the time)

This movement's basic goals have always been to "equalize things" by making grinding poverty, endemic corruption, and non functional infrastructure the reality for formerly prosperous first wielders by directly penalizing the first world for success and handing the spoils of all this success to nations who will squander it.

It's a hateful bigoted F***ed up movement based entirely in spite with a thin veneer of "fairness" over to and using PC / WHITE GUILT to ramrod it down everyone in the West's throats!

When the racism card turned out not to be enough to guilt the western middle classes into allowing their own destruction out of misplaced guilt, they added in the "environmental science" on top!


So here's the deal, AGW is happening to some degree and it is something that desperately needs addressing!

And that's exactly why I oppose the current policies which are wildly counterproductive and actively designed to hand the economic power etc to actually do things about it to people we KNOW WILL NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Exactly!!!

The policy as it sits now globally is literally the most disastrous possible course we could be on!

We've moved all the industry and mining to areas where they don't even PRETEND to care as much as American companies cared in the 70's about environmental responsibility, and that's just INSANE.



posted on Apr, 28 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
I'm speculating that Donald J. Trump and his henchmen...want to stoke the fires of global warming even higher --- come hell or high water --- so as to cause a year round ice free condition for shipping in the Northwest Passage.

That would be good for all of us. People cant eat snow and ice and plants hate it.



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Erno86
I'm speculating that Donald J. Trump and his henchmen...want to stoke the fires of global warming even higher --- come hell or high water --- so as to cause a year round ice free condition for shipping in the Northwest Passage.

That would be good for all of us. People cant eat snow and ice and plants hate it.


Ha ha ha...

Nothing better than a mouthful of snow (in a radioactive free zone), in order to quench my thirst while shoveling it --- But I do avoid eating that yellow snow.




"Global Warming Effects Map - Effects of Global Warming



www.climatehotmap.org...:



posted on Apr, 29 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Rising sea levels have to do with melting glaciers if I understand things correctly, and ever since the end of the ice age, our glaciers have been receding and if the world works as it's supposed to, the seal levels have been rising since that event started. So it's not something that should catch anyone by surprise, unless I'm wrong and sea level rise isn't due to glacial melt.


Don't forget the sea ice, there's more to melt away than glaciers.
However. Here's a piece on your point:


Researchers from the Universities of Bremen and Innsbruck have shown in a recent study that the further melting of glaciers cannot be prevented in the current century—even if all emissions were curtailed. However, due to the slow reaction of glaciers to climate change, human activity will have a massive impact beyond the 21st century. In the long run, 500 meters by car with a mid-range vehicle will cost one kilogram of glacier ice. The study has now been published in Nature Climate Change.


In the Paris Agreement, 195 member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to limit the rise in global average temperature to significantly below 2°C, if possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This should significantly reduce the risks of climate change. What would the success of this plan mean for the evolution of glaciers? This is the conclusion of climate researchers Ben Marzeion and Nicolas Champollion from the Institute of Geography at the University of Bremen and Georg Kaser and Fabien Maussion from the Institute of Atmospheric and Cryospheric Sciences at the University of Innsbruck. They have investigated this question by calculating the effects of compliance with these climate goals on the progressive melting of glaciers. "Melting glaciers have a huge influence on the development of sea level rise. In our calculations, we took into account all glaciers worldwide—without the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and peripheral glaciers—and modeled them in various climate scenarios," explains Georg Kaser.

phys.org



posted on Apr, 30 2018 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools




There must be a way to heat things up to make 2000 million scientist right again.


One study does not make all the rest of the scientists wrong. You need to check you confirmation bias.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Fools




There must be a way to heat things up to make 2000 million scientist right again.


One study does not make all the rest of the scientists wrong. You need to check you confirmation bias.


The absolute fact that they have been entirely and totally wrong should be enough proof...talk about bias that is fully confirmable.

These scientists on the subject of climate are a disgrace.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Science has been compromised for decades, and it's becoming a total farce.

Science said 110 story highrises really DO pulverize into microscopic dust particles, in 20 seconds, because it happened twice on the same day, with two aluminum-sheet metal planes! No evidence needed, when 'expert scientists' know exactly how everything happened! And since we are not 'experts', like they are, we just 'don't know' what they know!

All our 'experts' now make 'cartoon physics' act as real physics!! That takes real talent, and the government only hires the vert best talent out there!


When they say the planet is getting hotter, it is really the opposite. So 'global warming' became 'climate change'. That covers their ass on everything, like snow in deserts, for the first time ever, can now be included as part of 'climate change'. In the next few week, they'll all spout off about the planet getting hotter, all the time. But no mention of snow falling in the deserts... for some reason.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO




The absolute fact that they have been entirely and totally wrong should be enough proof...talk about bias that is fully confirmable. These scientists on the subject of climate are a disgrace.


Cut to the chase and stop making stuff up. You really dont know what you are talking about. Go and get some facts and come back to me. Answer this how many papers are there on climate change. What percentage do you think are wrong.



posted on May, 6 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Confronting The Realities of Climate Change --- The Consequences of Global Warming Are Already Here


Sign the Union of Concerned Scientists petition to Trump...

Here: www.ucsusa.org...



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Who would've thought that a liberal-hyped multi-thousand-year problem wouldn't actually be causing us grief within our relatively short lifespans.

Not surprised here at all



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

I'd just like to see the raw data (instead of their bias interpretations of the alleged data)

As far as we know, this entire thing was made up and there is no real data. Hard to tell.

I'm sure our real government/real EPA will get to the bottom of it: whatever the truth ends up being, climate change or no climate change.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




I'd just like to see the raw data (instead of their bias interpretations of the alleged data)


Its all there to see. Along with the papers too. Why dont you go and have a look :-)




top topics



 
41
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join