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.

 

The Day After Tomorrow?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
It seems that each year you have more hurricanes than the year before which means in 10 to 20 years, it will really be bad. Now I am no scientist, but saw these interesting facts while browsing the internet about hurricane Dennis. I could be wrong though. Please post your conclusions!

Hurricane chart:
www.aoml.noaa.gov...

[edit on 20-7-2005 by agentlopez]




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The Day After Tommorow was the most unrealistic movie ever and should not be metioned. It's scientific inaccracies are incredible.

Don't worry about this global warming stuff. I remember worse hurricane seasons in my memory (don't ask when, it was a while ago). Global warming won't be a problem fro at least 50 years and even then we won't even care.

[edit on 7/20/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
While the 'The After Tommorow' was highly scientifically inaccurate. The theory that the gulf stream may shut/slow down is a possiblity. In fact here's a link.

Gulf Stream Shut/Slow Down



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Lol, sorry bout the wrong impression, but 'The Day After Tomorrow' was just my title. The movie had hurricanes in it, so it seemed somewhat appropriate.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldEagle
The Day After Tommorow was the most unrealistic movie ever and should not be metioned. It's scientific inaccracies are incredible.

[edit on 7/20/2005 by GoldEagle]


I thought that movie was a great comedy. I was ROTFLMAO!!!



The number of hurricanes in recent years is still within the normal range of variation. We just got spoiled after several decades of abnormally low numbers of hurricanes.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
While it is true that the Hurricane data is hard to fathom whether or not there is an increase or decrease ( recordkeeping problem) there is a fact that can't be denied. Global warming has been on a trend for decades now and we are still trying to understand its mechanisms.
That article is a reality. To understand how the water affects weather, look at it this way...
Ocean currents are the lifeblood of the planet. The temperature changes are like a clogged artery and as a result a stroke is imminent. In the case of climate, suface temperatures that had followed the same patterns tend to shift, cold water doesn't come as far south to warm, warm water doesn't have that cooling effect from the depths hence when a tropical depression traverses the warmer water a hurricane is formed.
Less cooling of the water in our temperate zones feeds not only the number, but the strength of the hurricanes.
The falacy I feel I should point out about global warming and our efforts to reverse the change is that car manufacturers have set emmision guidelines in place to reduce the number of emmisions. Its blowing smoke up our collective rears if you stop to think about it.
1) The damage has already been done
2) Even if the manufacturers eliminated 99% of the emmisions in new cars, the old cars are still there, still being used, and that minimal 1% is only adding to the problem, albeit it at a lesser increment, but all the same, emmisions are increasing nevertheless.
If you don't believe in global warming, and I would hope it isn't a fact, then how can you explain the melting ice caps, the melting glaciers, the fact that a new island had been discovered (that was more than 10 yrs ago) in Antarctica that had previously been covered over with a glacier? Those melting caps are raising sea levels, changing the ocean temperatures and depths to which they had previously interacted.
The only sure solution is to stop emmisions ENTIRELY and let the planet stablize. Only then will we know how much damage has been done.

This obviously isn't an option with our dependence upon fossil fuels.
Alternative modes of transport and energy are all that will stop the trend.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I can just imagine people sat watching The Day After Tommorow with their notepads, tutting as they scribe every innacuracy and flaw, before taking the dvd back to the rental shop and explaining why they want their money back, using the list of innacuracies. Like something Comic Book Guy would do.

One should never look to Holywood for the truth, it's like looking for milk in a gold mine. Like someone already says, when the global warming catches us up, "we won't even care". Thats not to say I won't, I bloody well do, but the population won't. I don't think anyone even believes that we are harming the earth, it's just a joke to most.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
well if u think about it the world already had 1 ice age it can survive another. we are likt alot of fleas to the world and it is trying to get rid of us. take ADIS there is no cure and are bodys have no deffence against it. u ask me the world is kill us off. and the world willl stablize it self we might not like how is dose it but we will deal with it.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by keybored
... Global warming has been on a trend for decades now and we are still trying to understand its mechanisms...

This obviously isn't an option with our dependence upon fossil fuels.
Alternative modes of transport and energy are all that will stop the trend.


Anthropogenic carbon is only a CONTRIBUTING factor to global warming, not a CAUSAL factor. Many things are contributing to global warming. Automotive emissions are only one of many, and are not even the primary contributing factor. The climate would still be warming if we eliminated every automotive from the planet. The climate would still be warming if we eliminated all humans from the planet. It is warming from natural factors. Anthropogenic carbon is only helping it along, with great dispute over how much we are actually contributing to the rate of change.

This is why trying to stop global warming with useless efforts like Kyoto are just stupid. While reducing net carbon output (which the U.S. is doing, more than most of the rest of the world) we must also prepare for and adapt to global warming. It's coming regardless of whatever actions we take.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I guess you are right, cars are only a small part of the problem. Deforestation also plays a role, as does launching shuttles etc.. Ironically its not the warmth that will get us, its the next ice-age that it brings in when increased vulcanism starts to block sunlight.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by keybored
Deforestation also plays a role, as does launching shuttles etc... Ironically its not the warmth that will get us, its the next ice-age that it brings in when increased vulcanism starts to block sunlight.


Exactly how does global warming affect volcanic activity?


And deforestation is chiefly occuring in the undeveloped world. In industrial countries (the U.S. most notably) forest cover is increasing. The single biggest cause of deforestation in the world is fuelwood gathering for cooking and heating, with over half of global wood consumption. The solution to this is developing an alternative inexpensive energy source for the third world. The cheapest and easiest to implement would be fossil fuels, which would only compound the greater problems of atmospheric carbon and global oil supplies.

It is much easier to identify the problem and cast blame than to develop practical solutions.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   


Exactly how does global warming affect volcanic activity?



I would think heat is energy, more heat = more energy penetrating the mantle. At least, that's my take on it.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
let me recant that, it won't be global warming or an ice age that will get us (some of us). I sometimes forget how short the time really is. The Book of Revelations says it all. Christians won't even be here to see Armageddon let alone the next ice-age. My apologies... sometimes I get caught up in my own thinking and overlook the obvious.... I guess I'm still in denial.
And I do hope somebody says I'm wrong about Armageddon (nobody knows the hour but time will tell) although my concern isn't for me.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by keybored



Exactly how does global warming affect volcanic activity?



I would think heat is energy, more heat = more energy penetrating the mantle. At least, that's my take on it.


The extremely small amount of extra heat energy penetrating downward through the soil and bedrock would be insufficient to change any volcanic activity.


Revelations is not really a prophecy, although many erroneously (IMHO) interpret it that way. Revelations is a metaphor (a rather elaborate and animated metaphor) about the difficult choices between good and evil, doing right and wrong, we face every day; with an imbedded illustration of being prepared to face evil whenever it confronts you. It was originally written with the backdrop of the Roman persecution of the early Christian Church and must be read with that context in mind.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   


Revelations is not really a prophecy


Well, I would hope that you are right, although, something happened 2005 years ago to make us start counting days. As to metaphors, you are right, the bible is filled with them. This isn't the thread for Religion however so I won't comment on it further here.




The extremely small amount of extra heat energy penetrating downward through the soil and bedrock would be insufficient to change any volcanic activity.


Extremely small? I would have to take exception to this statement. I grew up sir in a time where you got a sunburn standing in the sun. Today you can get a burn when its overcast. Do you honestly believe that this heat isn't having any effect or isn't being absorbed? It (radiation) no longer is being prevented from entering our atmosphere due to the depletion of our magnetic field which btw is decreasing at a rate where it no longer will allow this planet to support life (as we know it) in another 2000 years.

This same "extremely small" heat is also what causes the dehydration of our soils, causes wildfires to burn out of control until we send in hundreds if not thousands of men to either build a firebreak or start a burn ahead of it so we can get it under control, and you don't think this heat is having an effect on our mantle? Where do you think all this heat that is being absorbed goes? Man it is so hot you can fry eggs on car hoods and blacktop roads and I recall a time when they used to say you can fry an egg on an engine block.
I don't know if there is even any research into the aspect we are discussing ... I don't even know that people would want to know, but it is still my opinion that yes indeed this heat is a contributing factor to vulcanism... maybe we don't recognize that fact but I am convinced it is a fact. I don't think it is so far fetched to draw that conclusion and I take it as a given.
If you can provide me with proof that this additional heat is so negligible that it has no affect I'll apologize for doubting you, however, I don't think anybody is even looking into it... probably because they take it as a given?
Please correct me if I am wrong because I sincerely hope that I am.

If anyone can prove me wrong please do so, I thirst for knowledge and would like to be as accurate as possible in my assumptions.

Please take this in the spirit in which it was meant to be given... I'm not trying to offend or challenge your beliefs but my beliefs stem from 5 decades of seeing what goes on around me. I feel pretty strongly that this heat buildup is having an effect. It's probably impossible to prove one way or the other but I am convinced that it is detrimental. I know we have records of droughts etc, but is anybody aware if there is such a thing as soil surface temperature records? Volcanic activity alone wouldn't prove anything one way or the other, we see the increase but it could be coincidental, likewise Earthquake activity.
Maybe we should just drop it. I leave that up to you all.
Thanks for your time.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I hate to single out one person, keyboard, but I must take issue with your entire post. What's interesting is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of "Global Warming" which is the theory postulating that increased levels CO2 and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere because of the greenhouse effect.

Currently the planet going through a natural warming trend since the onset of the Holocene about 10,000 years ago. In other words the planet is thawing from the last ice age. What's interesting is that inside of this general warming trend for the last 400,000 years approximately every 1500 years we undergo a mini-ice age that lasts for 200 years or so. Polar ice caps and glaciers have been melting since the start of the Holocene, and as a consequence of their melting for the last 10,000 years sea-level has risen at a rate of around 6 to 9 inches every century.

There is no conclusive evidence that melting is occuring at a faster rate. Though studies suggest that Anarctica is actually getting colder and the ice is thickening. As far as glaciers are concerned considering there are more than 150,000 of them on the planet, and only 246 have actually been studied. And from that meager number only 79 of glaciers have mass balance data extending beyond 5 years. How can any argument be made for a trend of increasing glacial melting from such a lack of data? For the record the most renowned glacier, Kilimanjaro, is melting due to anthropogenic influence, not global warming, but deforestation.



The only sure solution is to stop emmisions ENTIRELY and let the planet stablize. Only then will we know how much damage has been done.

Let the planet stabilize, don't insinuate that there is some balance of nature. Our environment and indeed our ENTIRE PLANET is in a constant state of flux and it never has been and never will be in balance. Whatever affects we have on the planet are miniscule and ultimately insignificant to the power of the natural forces.

Now since this thread was initially about the threat of increased extreme weather in general and hurricanes in particular the records are not ambiguous. www.nhc.noaa.gov... There were more hurricanes of greater intensity earlier in the 20th century than we've seen in more recent decades. We could be witnessing a return to conditions that were conducive to the hurricane patterns we saw back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Certainly, there is no drastic increase in extreme weather shown by the evidence. This unfortunately common misconception is due to a variety of factors. Chief among them is unscrupulous individuals using increased media coverage of natural disasters to make false connections between flawed, unproven theories and the decreased number of hurricanes compared with the first half of the 20th century.


www.newscientist.com...
www.usatoday.com...
www.ingentaconnect.com...

[edit on 21-7-2005 by PDTwitch]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
PDTwitch, thank you for the clarification. I can appreciate the time you took to respond to my post and correcting my assumptions.

When I said we neeed to let the planet stabilize, I was implying stabilization from our meddling.

What you are saying is that we have had a minimal affect on our climate and yet if this is the case, then why are we in such a pickle?
It would seem to me that we have had a greater impact than you state for the very reason that even scientists are looking into it. If this is a normal flux of the planet, then how is it that we have had ozone holes?
I have to ask if you got your info from a single source?
I'm not trying to be contentious on this issue, merely curious as to what is going on when scientists can't agree, industry continues to pump it out, emmision guidlines are being laid down, and yet we are only having a negligible effect?
Please explain since I see the patterns changing right in front of my eyes. When I was growing up in Canada, we saw numerous snow storms, maybe an inch or two. occasionally a blizzard would dump feet, but rarely... Now I see they drop feet at a time. There is more moisture in the atmosphere and that can only be from warming. You are saying this is a normal cycle of our planet? How could there be a record of how much snowfall fell when it would in turn melt? I am speaking locally of course and not of extreme Northern/Southern hemispheres where the snow stayed year round and we could measure how much fell in that particular winter.

I am still convinced that we (industrial revolution) have had a detrimental effet to our climate and like I said, if not, then why all the hoopla among the scientific community regarding Kyoto in the first place.
Thanks again for posting. ... in all honesty, if scientists can't agree on it then why should we even bother?
Also, this flux you speak of doesn't take into account the weakening magnetic field so this trend is by no means normal... how can we draw upon history to predict a situation unique to our day?
... I feel so dumb sometimes



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
LOL I think we all should just agree to disagree...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by keybored
...This same "extremely small" heat is also what causes the dehydration of our soils, causes wildfires to burn out of control until we send in hundreds if not thousands of men to either build a firebreak or start a burn ahead of it so we can get it under control, and you don't think this heat is having an effect on our mantle? Where do you think all this heat that is being absorbed goes? Man it is so hot you can fry eggs on car hoods and blacktop roads and I recall a time when they used to say you can fry an egg on an engine block.
I don't know if there is even any research into the aspect we are discussing ... Thanks for your time.


My background is in firefighting and fire ecology. There has been a great deal of research into heat from forest fires and soils, and there is relatively little downward pulse of heat into the soil. Dry soils actually are an insulator. Wet soils transmit heat better, but we are still talking an increase of < 30 degrees at less than a meter in depth (centimeters is more like it), and that is from a fire with a surface temperature of two thousand degrees or more. The increase in air temperature from global warming is projected to be around 10-12 degrees C in the worst case scenario. That will certainly not affect the mantle temperature hundreds of kilometers below the surface.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by dave_54]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Thank you!

I stand corrected, and reassured. I still believe however that we are dealing with forces here unlike anything our historical records can draw upon. When throughout history has there been this rapid a change?
I'll go along with the popular vote on this, however, personally I'm not entirely convinced. ... and my AC is still on


[edit on 22-7-2005 by keybored]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join