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.

 

SCI/TECH: Satellites Record Weakening North Atlantic Current

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Muaddib chimed in:
"Outland, for you even after five major hurricanes go over your house you won't find it as extreme weather for some reason. Go figure."


Five hurricanes for Florida isn't unusual in the least.


Muaddib also said:
"Oh btw, you did not mention anything about the hurricane season in your report, at least not the one you pointed us to."


I didn't say that there was anything specifically about hurricanes at that link. I referred to it for the forecasting element in general.


UM_Gazz asked:
"Really what about the bigger picture?"


Sorry... I don't subscribe to climate related doomsday scenarios.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by Outland]




posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
As Jeanne fades (now ranked as a depression), I expect Karl to be short lived as well. Water temps off the coast of Africa are dropping, depleting the energy required for more severe Atlantic storms.

Again, it's a pretty average season. So much for that doomsday scenario that so many seem to want.



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outland

Five hurricanes for Florida isn't unusual in the least.


Four major hurricanes, category 4 formed within a month is very unusual, and still more hurricanes are forming, one after the other. It is my belief that you are in denial Outland.


National forecasters say more hurricanes than normal are expected to whip across the Gulf and Atlantic coasts this season.

At a news conference last month, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials said the seasonal outlook is for 12 to 15 tropical storms, with six to eight systems becoming hurricanes, and two to four of those major hurricanes.
....................
Forecasters are particularly concerned about the Atlantic coast, expected to have another year of above-normal activity, which began in 1995. Since then all but two Atlantic hurricane seasons (the El Nio years of 1997 and 2002) have been above normal.


Excerpted from.
www.lendingexpo.net...


"I don't remember this happening before in such a short period of time," National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield told reporters, "and the season is only half-over."

It might be a generation before hurricane weather slips back into a quiet phase, he and other experts say.

"The hurricane threat is much greater than it was in the 1970s through early 1990s," said federal meteorologist Stan Goldenberg, who flew around Hurricane Ivan in research aircraft as it approached Mobile, Ala. "It could last another 10 to 40 years."

Since 1995, environmental conditions have shifted and the Atlantic has been spawning more strong storms. The number of major hurricanes has more than doubled. In the Caribbean, it's up by a factor of five.

Even with milder storm years in 1997 and 2002, the period since 1995 is the most active nine consecutive years on record, according to pioneering hurricane forecaster William Gray at Colorado State University.

Since 2000, the United States has been hit by an average of four powerful storms per season.


Excerpted from.
www.usatoday.com...

Oh, but of course, Outland knows better....

I did forget to mention that between Ivan and Charley we have the most tornadoes ever formed in any September in record. Add to this the other reports other members and I have given of record storms, lightning strikes, and extreme weather in general.

---edited to add some more information---

[edit on 20-9-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 20-9-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
the one issue though is that our weather history records are very small compared to the overall history. it could be a blip, a normal periodic cycle or an abnormal trend. based on our limited sample size of data id think its hard to say conclusively either way.



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Well, now we have 5 major hurricanes, category 4, within a month. Karl just became cat 4.

Notice that the predictions for this hurricane season was for 3 or 4 major Hurricanes.



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Muaddib said:
"Four major hurricanes, category 4 formed within a month is very unusual, and still more hurricanes are forming, one after the other. It is my belief that you are in denial Outland."

Perhaps "very unusual" over a short time span, but certainly not unheard of. Unfortunately, your claim is rather broad as it is vague since prior to the early 1970's, the present categories and methodology of the Saffir-Simpson scale wasn't yet used. Therefore, many of the storms that occurred in the past during a single month may have been category 4 storms. Categories for previous storms are based on estimations of reported wind speeds based on whatever equipment was handy to use at the time, usually aboard ships that didn't venture too closely or coastal weather stations that could only measure winds that likely were already diminishing upon landfall. It's a far cry from today where the wind speed is measured over a period of one minute (usually by airborne measurements) and then compared to satellite and buoy data. In short, no one really knows the accurate maximum sustained wind speeds of 95% of past tropical storms.

It is my belief that you don't do enough research and prefer to wallow in fear mongering doom scenarios.


Muaddib quoted:
"Forecasters are particularly concerned about the Atlantic coast, expected to have another year of above-normal activity, which began in 1995. Since then all but two Atlantic hurricane seasons (the El Nio years of 1997 and 2002) have been above normal."


"Above normal"? How come they don't mention that there was a lull prior to that? And what if it is above normal? "Normal" was exceeded a few times in the past. That's just the way weather is. So what?


Muaddib quoted more:
"'I don't remember this happening before in such a short period of time,' National Hurricane Center director Max Mayfield told reporters, 'and the season is only half-over.'"


I guess Mayfield never looked at their own records. 1887 and 1933. Look it up yourself.


Muaddib quoted more (continued):
"It might be a generation before hurricane weather slips back into a quiet phase, he and other experts say."


No kidding. Especially where the Earth is concerned, many events do have a cyclic nature. Again, so what?

"The number of hurricanes making landfall in a given year is controlled not only by the long-term, multi-decade.... but by three shorter-term cycles as well. These four distinct 'temporal modes' each probably the result of a different atmospheric and oceanic phenomenon combine to determine the number of tropical storms that make landfall each year..."


Muaddib quoted more (continued):
"'The hurricane threat is much greater than it was in the 1970s through early 1990s,' said federal meteorologist Stan Goldenberg,.... 'It could last another 10 to 40 years.'"


The 1970s through early 1990s were in the "lull" period. Was this an attempt to make someone worried?


Muaddib quoted more (continued):
"Since 1995, environmental conditions have shifted and the Atlantic has been spawning more strong storms. The number of major hurricanes has more than doubled. In the Caribbean, it's up by a factor of five."


Another attempt to sound scary? I'll bet that some also thought the world was going into a doomsday scenario back in 1887 or 1933 as well. Considering the time span, we're due for more. Welcome to nature.


Muaddib quoted USA Today:
"Since 2000, the United States has been hit by an average of four powerful storms per season."


Is that all?

Excerpted from here:
"According to The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000 only 28 of the listed 65 events occurred since 1950. The Deadliest, Costliest, And Most Intense United States Hurricanes From 1900 To 2000 (And Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts) indicates that fully half the years when no hurricanes struck mainland U.S. are after 1950 (10 of 19). The most hurricanes to strike in one year were six in 1916 and 1985. There were five in 1933, and four in 1906, 1909, and 1964. Three hurricanes struck the U.S. in one year a total of sixteen times. Ten of these sixteen times occurred during the sixteen years from 1944 to 1959."


Muaddib ended with:
"I did forget to mention that between Ivan and Charley we have the most tornadoes ever formed in any September in record. Add to this the other reports other members and I have given of record storms, lightning strikes, and extreme weather in general."


But how far do those "records" go? It's hard to quantify events in the distant past, so one shouldn't make sweeping claims. Consider that some have made general claims that tornado and thunderstorm activity has dramatically increased over the past few decades. The reality is that what has increased during that time frame is the use of Doppler radar and better reporting & observations. More people inhabit more land as well. It's not likely that the native Indian tribes of FL kept detailed weather records.

What might seem as "unusual" over a period of some years might be "normal" over a period of centuries. Why so many people have built so much in hazardous areas is the real cause for alarm.



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Outland
It is my belief that you don't do enough research and prefer to wallow in fear mongering doom scenarios.


Really, so I don't do enough research huh?

I am not going to go through this again, but i responded to something like this in another post of yours at the following link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


But....I have to point something you stated in another of your previous posts, and which is totally incorrect, which is one among other erroneous statements you have made before.

Here is what you say.


Outland states
I do believe:
..........
There are no recorded surface temperatures on record above 0C at either of the poles, yet the ice shrinks?


Excerpted from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But first, you don't take into account the following...which once again tells me how much you know about this topic.


Professor Peter Wadhams, of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, UK, told BBC News Online: "People say global warming can't be raising air temperatures enough to melt the ice, because the Arctic winter temperature is around -30C anyway, and a one-degree warming would be irrelevant.

"But it's the summer temperatures that matter. Arctic summers are getting longer, so there is longer for the warmer air to melt the snow and affect the ice beneath.

"The other mechanism is the warming of one or two degrees in the water under the ice - enough to increase the bottom melting quite considerably.


Excerpted from.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Second, about there being no record of temperature rise in either pole...


Last Update: Saturday, August 28, 2004. 5:23am (AEST)
Major temperature rise recorded in Arctic

German scientists probing global warming say they have detected a major temperature rise in the Arctic Ocean this year and linked it to a progressive shrinking of the region's sea ice.

Temperatures recorded this year in the upper 500 metres of sea in the Fram Strait - the gap between Greenland and the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen - were up to 0.6 C higher than in 2003, they said.

The rise was detectable to a water depth of 2,000 metres, "representing an exceptionally strong signal by ocean standards," it said.

The experts, from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, have been recording temperatures aboard a specialised vessel, Polarstern (Pole Star), for the past six weeks.

The sampling has been taking place in the West Spitsbergen Current, which carries warm water from the Atlantic into the Arctic Ocean.

The institute said water in the Fram Strait has been warming steadily since 1990 and over the past three years, satellite images had documented "a clear recession" of sea ice edges, both in the strait and the Barents Sea.

The latest data "point towards a further warming tendency," the institute said.


Excerpted from.
www.abc.net.au...


You also state the following.

According to Outland
I do believe:
............
That the IPCC panel distorted the actual climate reports which actually stated that there was insufficient data to confirm or deny global warming.


You do forget to mention that the IPCC panel is not the only one that claims that the average global temperature has increased in the 20th century, but The US National Academy of Science, in its 2002 report to the Bush administration and other more recent publications states the same thing. What would the the US National Academy of Science mean when they state "global temperature has increased in the 20th century"?


[edit on 22-9-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Current topographical data in the form of an Image shows
The continued weakening of the North Atlantic currents.
Which are proven to help moderate global climate.

In the image below you are seeing currents. The arrows
show direction.. colors show movements, or how intense the
movement is.

If you look in the upper right (North Atlantic) you will see how dramtic
it really is. There is no movement at all. And the area of non-movement
is moving further south as time passes.

Source: NASA JPL



Only time will show the true impact of this weakening current on the
climate. It seems that most of the population need to see it happen
before they will believe that abrupt climate change is at hand.

The salinity levels in the deep oceans are dropping.. And will only contribute
to the weakening of these currents.

Until we have proof.. all we can do is wait and watch as global weather
anomalies in the extremes of weather continue to grow.

One can only hope that the change is slow and consistant and that we
are not faced with rapid and massive global cooling.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz


Until we have proof.. all we can do is wait and watch as global weather
anomalies in the extremes of weather continue to grow.

One can only hope that the change is slow and consistent and that we
are not faced with rapid and massive global cooling.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]


Unfortunately wait and watch is what will be done, nothing. And there are many theories with supportive evidence that the change may not be slow and constant but rapid, very rapid.
Sort of like a break over point of no return. For instance in the late 80's there was a quake centered at Cape Mendocino, Ca. About a three mile stretch of coast line rose between 20 and 30 feet at a 45 degree angle in a minute. If this event had of occurred in Downtown San Francisco all high rise buildings would have reached the point of no return and fallen like trees on those below. Think about it

On the Cape it resulted in the Mass extinction of a Seal Herd. As it turns out they are home bodies. They are born on a rock live, raise their young and die on that rock.

I saw my Rock,
With my Eye's,
And Loved It.

Polar Bear '72'

Vast numbers perished making ceaseless futile attempts to regain their rocks that were now out of reach. Mother Nature.

Whoops almost forgot, remember don't forget


www.iceagenow.com...

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Polar Bear]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Is this just a flux? It seems almost TOO MUCH of a coincidence with the movie and the theory which Earth is going to end around 2012.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The Earth is not going to end in 2012, but there will be many changes, and it seems as if we will have to change many of our ways in the near future. Coastal cities will be the most affected by this at first, but on the longrun everyone will be affected. The food production in the world depends on the current climate patterns, and these climate patterns are changing.... I think i don't have to say anymore for people to realize at least one of the problems that will occur with these changes, but the Earth is not going to be destroyed in 2012.

---edited for errors---

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I talked about extreme weather systems, climate change and weakening ocean currents in this thread, and add the following links to show that what I expected to see has so far happened.. The freakish and unusual weather systems and anomalies seem to be continuing, and may be getting worse.

I think you'll find a several posts back in this thread I said we needed to watch the weather during this winter.. and here we are, with even more extreme weather, some still developing at this moment.

Personal note, Amazing work Indy!!


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also see this old report from back in the summer:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is this a sign of a shifting climate? Perhaps, but not quite enough to convince most of us.

So we'll just have to wait and see.

Gazz

[edit on 5-1-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
NASA data: 2005 could be warmest year ever recorded

Just adding what could be another extreme in several months of many now..

What will things be like a year from now?

Climate change, extreme weather, weather anomalies... hmmm



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
...Shifting weather patterns...



Excellent thread - great predictions. Thanks for bringing this back up. ...Amazing how propaganda can neutralize even good common sense...



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   
The weather picture is a little wierd right now, that's for sure. Check out the mainpage at:
www.weather.com...

Look at that mess. There's a splintered high pressure system squatting on the northwest, a low pressure system sweeping across the plains and northwards, reminiscent of the African monsoon season. In addition there is a warm air band mingling with a cold air band and spiralling northwards across the north east, pulling warm air northwards in the winter time. They've got a ton of precipitation, and its all running into the ocean. There is more and more added daily from all over the country. The other day California had a big rain storm sweep up and drench the eastern side of the southern mountains.

The river run off and ice melt alone is accountable for drastic water temperature changes. The water loses enough salinity to shift its boiling/freeze point and we're in trouble.

Warm gets warmer, lots of fog and mist in the air, most of the water rains down and drains into the ocean. Then all of a sudden we probably shift back into a rapid ice age when all the water in the oceans, now largely desalinated, starts to cool rapidly.

It seems our planet is changing sooner than we ever anticipated. There are noteworthy changes being observed on other planets as well. I for one am not afraid, just impatient for the monster to jump out from inside the closet so to speak.

I think pollution is a two edged sword, and people shouldn't jump to conclusions. They should accept the fact that pollution may be saving our butts right now. We just don't know for sure. It appears that the balance that has been disturbed on earth, and in order to right itself in the past, the planet always relied on drastic shifts. These being hazardous to us, we aren't going to want to stick around too much longer.

I think the answer might be planet ships, world ships, garden ships, whatever you want to call them. Amuk has a thread going on that subject, and it's an excellent read. I may edit to post the link, but a brief search should find it.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
.........................
I think the answer might be planet ships, world ships, garden ships, whatever you want to call them. Amuk has a thread going on that subject, and it's an excellent read. I may edit to post the link, but a brief search should find it.


Yes, I can see that happening also in the future, but not in less than 50-100 years from now. I don't think we have the technology to make a "battlestar Galactica" yet. I think what we will see in the not so far future is underground cities, more underground homes etc, etc.

That would take care of many of the problems with living in the surface, the only natural problem we could face underground are earthquakes, and this can be solved easily by placing such underground structures in areas that don't lie near or are on any faultlines. The temperature underground remains a constant 65+- Degrees nomatter what happens on the surface.

The surface of planets are not stable enough to maintain civilizations for long periods of time, as it is true that there are natural changes on a planet's surface which occur periodically, as well as human induced problems. Also, underground farms would make an excellent choice for the problems we face with food production on the surface. A controlled environment underground, sort of a biodome but completly underground, would garantee that those farms underground can be used year-around to produce all sorts of food.

I see us moving closer to this, but I wish we didn't have to.

But eventually, when we have the technology, I am certain humankind would have to live in space, in large city size ships.

---edited for errors---


[edit on 15-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

...eventually, when we have the technology, I am certain humankind would have to live in space, in large city size ships.





A fine solution. Then. when we've filled it with our excrement, we can just get another ship.



.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

A fine solution. Then. when we've filled it with our excrement, we can just get another ship.


What exactly are we supposed to do? It could be possible that in the future we will find better ways to "recycle" our garbage, but the other option is stay on Earth and wait for another natural disaster to bring us to the brink of extinction. Would you prefer that?...

Organic garbage can be used as manure for crops, it won't be pretty but at least it will be a good use for all organic garbage.

I am pretty certain that other civilizations in the Universe had to face the same dilemma, and I am pretty much certain that they would have chosen to survive.....



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
A lot of time has passed since this.. we talked about extreme weather, among other things.

Well.. here we are today.. and it could get even worse in the future...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

More later...



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Climatic impact has many aspects. Consider this: The US Hazards Assessment from the National Weather Service.

Illinois is already a Federal Disaster Area due to persistent drought. My garden here got rain only twice this year.

Western Nebraska could easily undergo desertification due to the fact that its soils are developed in the sands of an ancient desert.

Remember the ground water is recharged by rainwaters. Coupled with how we rely on well water for 70% of our supply, large areas could soon be abandoned.

Climate is hardly a control on the dashboard. Weather patterns are in the midst of change, even permafrost is melting in Arctic regions.

The latter effect could well prove to be a "tipping point" for the climate. Many trillions of tons of Methane Hydrates in high latitudes are being released from soils as the climatic conditions change.

Methane is far worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. So the problem of global warming is multiplied, simply because of the warming already taking place.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join