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.
Originally posted by winged patriot
This post is crazy, just more unpatriotic stuff to put another lipstick liberal in the white house!
I saw a short on fox news of that a man claims to have seen green peace boats blowin up chunks off the north pole at night???
Like I've said all along this whole thing is a liberal pile of poop!!!
The bibles says the earth is only 6-8 thousand years old - so this crap about ice ages would be a first to me, and the earth!
Just think-- Stop this liberal fairy tale!!!
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Long Lance
Well, if you have a link that shows that the poles are not melting, just getting lower levels of precipitation, please trot it out for us to look at. How about the Himalayans, are they also seeing less rainfall, and is that why they are shrinking?
I feel for people in low areas near the ocean, but can we even do anything about it?
"The real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved."
According to Hardy, forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession. "Clearing for agriculture and forest fires—often caused by honey collectors trying to smoke bees out of their hives—have greatly reduced the surrounding forests," he says. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation.
Climatically, many high Arctic locations are considered cold deserts -- that is, they receive (with local exceptions) less than 10 inches of precipitation annually. Indeed, some areas of the Arctic, such as Peary Land in northern Greenland, are drier than many tropical deserts. Generally, precipitation amounts are higher the farther south one travels in the Arctic region. Most precipitation in the Arctic takes the form of snow, which falls mainly during the autumn and the early spring.
Originally posted by Long Lance
i'm honestly wondering why the loss of the northern icecap should be considered catastrophic. as long as the cause is local in nature and does not negatively affect the rest of the planet, why even bother?
Originally posted by Blaine91555
That tells me that they don't know and don't have the decency to admit they don't know.
Originally posted by poet1b
Won't efforts to cut greenhose gases and collect scientific evidance lead to job creation? Won't efforts to prepare for rising ocean levels also lead to job creation. It seems to me that forcing corporations to be more environmentally friendly also creates jobs. I don't see the donwside to a global effort to make our energy usage more efficient. I see a spreading of the wealth through the advancement of better technology and development of better infrastructure. The only people I think who loose by these efforts are the super rich, who won't be able to shave off ever larger chunks of the worlds productivity for their exclusive gain.
When life first began to develop on Earth, short-term variations in Sol's brightness were probably limited to a few tenths of a percent. Many Sol-type stars go through periods of diminished activity during which they can get as much as one half to one percent dimmer, as magnetic activity subsides for decades or longer. A prolonged reduction in Solar luminosity could send Earth into another ice age. Indeed, one such episode known as the Maunder minimum may have triggered the Little Ice Age from 1645 to 1715 CE, when crops failed in Northern Europe and London's Thames River stayed frozen in June. According to Sallie L. Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, such diminutions of Solar activity contributed to 17 of the 19 known major episodes of extended chill downs of Earth's climate in the past 10,000 years.
Sol is becoming hotter and brighter as fusion of helium "ash" becomes more statistically common with the gradual depletion of hydrogen at its core, which may be half helium after 4.6 billion years of hydrogen fusion. Initially, this helium ash is inert and as it accumulates, the efficiency of nuclear fusion of core hydrogen and other processes decreases and the core produces less heat to maintain internal pressure. As a result, gravity works more efficiently to contract the center of the Sun and raise internal pressure to heat up the core more, which raises the overall energy transmitted to the surface. Astronomers believe that Sol has gotten at least 30 percent brighter since the formation of its planets. Sol is expected to become another 10 percent brighter over the next 1.1 billion years, and so Earth may become too uncomfortably hot for even microbial life in another 500 to 900 million years.
Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.
The increase is only a small fraction of the total heat from the sun, but in a century it would be enough to seriously aggravate problems of global warming thought to be caused by greenhouse gases, says Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.
Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,'' he said.
''This is a significant increase,'' said John Firor of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ''It would increase the rate at which we go into warming.''
Originally posted by poet1b
Won't efforts to cut greenhouse gases and collect scientific evidence lead to job creation? Won't efforts to prepare for rising ocean levels also lead to job creation. It seems to me that forcing corporations to be more environmentally friendly also creates jobs.