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.
So just to recap, extreme weather? Not really, just part of the natural way of the Earth.
How someone can look at clear scientific data pointing to a very real albeit terrifying scenario and still come away with the same point of view is beyond me.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by SonoftheSun
Just another thing to show how devastating HAARP can be.
Volcano eruptions and earthquakes are not caused by global warming. All those events are caused by something heating up or moving underneath the surface. Earth is getting ready to go through some dramatic geological changes, which will pave the way for an entirely new ecosystem.
Originally posted by Divine Strake
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are hereby charged with noticing things that most of the world does not. As a precautionary procedure, you will immediately forgo any and all future posts for a time as yet undetermined. As well, please supply all of your social site information, including passwords, to your local authorities. . .which will be arriving at your location 30 seconds after you read this.
Thank you for your timely cooperation.
Your Friends, The Illumin. . .I mean. . .Monsanto.
HAARP can create Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Hail storms, and other devastating weather anomalies.
When a 43-foot gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: it must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather had briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier.
On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.
The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicates a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.
"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip C. Reid, of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.
"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.
Why are governments allowed to get away with the idea that CO2 is a pollutant, when every market gardener knows the opposite? Why do we all allow this misguided talk about emissions? Why do we allow politicians and Green activists to traipse off to Copenhagen and now Cancun on a jolly, in order to make ridiculous and dangerous agreements regarding these same emissions?
So Timbuktu may be having a hot spell – will that cancel out the blizzards in Scotland? Will some statistician at the CRU or GISS work out by means of some obscure average that the Globe is one tenth warmer this year than some other year in the last one hundred? Who cares? I’ll tell you who cares – those who are freezing to death, those who are having to pay through the nose for windmills of shame that do not work! Those are they that care, while corrupt politicians count the filthy lucre they have gained on investments in so called carbon free industries.
So we are to be persuaded to buy electric cars, which are equally useless. Who wants a car that has to be charged up overnight after a measly 70 miles? And then there is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Somewhere out of sight, and out of mind, that electricity has to be generated. What price then if one had to wait till the wind did blow!
PS. Herewith some science for the layman, which needs only simple mathematics. Both sides agree that the current level of atmospheric CO2 is less than 400 parts per million by volume. That is 0.04 of the atmosphere. So the total amount from all sources, from respiration, from the oceans, from vents and volcanoes, and from the combustion of fossil fuel is only 0.04 of the atmosphere. How much of that is the anthropogenic element? Less than 4%. So 4% of 0.04 = 0.0016%. Now suppose the powers that be manage to persuade every sovereign power to cut their emissions of CO2 by 20% by 2020, what effect will that have? Let us do the sum. 20% of 0.0016 = 0.00032. Can you imagine just how ridiculous that is!
If the whole of the Globe was 15° centigrade, night and day, season in and season out, then one might be able to record a warming. But it is not like that, is it? Even the temperature of two airports as close as Heathrow and Gatwick show differences, and differences night and day.
Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have been occurring for about a century. But only about 3% of the CO2 has human origins. A likely source of the increase is heating of oceans, which causes CO2 to be released.
The most likely cause of oceans being heated is hot spots cycling in the earth’s core. A very significant point of evidence is that recent ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental causes would not be so consistent. But convection in the earth’s core could produce very precise repetitious cycles.
A lot of heat from the earth’s core gets to the surface, as indicated by deep wells which produce warm water. Oceans are deeper than deep water wells. So the oceans are picking up a lot of heat from the earth’s core. Any increase, and an ice age would surely be the result.
Warming waters in the deepest parts of the ocean surrounding Antarctica have contributed to sea-level rise over the past two decades, scientists report today (Sept. 20).
In an attempt to pinpoint all culprits for the rising oceans, scientists analzyed warming trends in the abyssal ocean — below about 3,300 feet (1,000 meters), said study team member and oceanographer Sarah Purkey of the University of Washington in Seattle.
The scientists found that the strongest deep warming occurred in the water around Antarctica, and the warming lessens as it spreads around the globe. The temperature increases are small — about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit (0.03 degrees Celsius) per decade in the deep Southern Ocean, and less elsewhere. But the large volume of the ocean over which they are found and the high capacity of water to absorb heat means that this warming accounts for a huge amount of energy storage.
This amount of energy would be the equivalent of giving every person on Earth five 1,400-Watt hair dryers, and running them constantly during the 20-year study period, said study team member and oceanographer Gregory Johnson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Sea level has been rising at around one-eighth of an inch (3 millimeters) per year on average since 1993, with about half of that caused by the ocean expanding as it's heated, and the other half due to additional water added to the ocean, mostly from melting continental ice.
The oceanographers note that deep warming of the Southern Ocean accounts for about one-twentieth of an inch (1.2 mm) per year of the sea-level rise around Antarctica in the past two decades.
The authors note that there are several possible causes for this deep warming: a shift in Southern Ocean winds; a change in the density of what is called Antarctic Bottom Water (which would change how much gets mixed with surface waters); or how quickly that bottom water is formed near the Antarctic, where it sinks to fill the deepest, coldest portions of the ocean around much of the globe.
NASA’s James Hansen is probably right about this point: the importance of ocean heat storage to a better understanding of how sensitive the climate system is to our greenhouse gas emissions. The more efficient the oceans are at storing excess heat during warming, the slower will be the surface temperature response of the climate system to an imposed energy imbalance.
Unfortunately, the uncertainties over the rate at which vertical mixing takes place in the ocean allows climate modelers to dismiss a lack of recent warming by simply asserting that the deep oceans must somehow be absorbing the extra heat. Think Trenberth’s “missing heat“. (For a discussion of the complex processes involved in ocean mixing see here.)
Well, maybe what is really missing is the IPCC’s willingness to admit the climate system is simply not as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions as they claim it is. Maybe the missing heat is missing because it does not really exist.
I WILL say I firmly believe that the surface temperature is THE MOST important temperature in the climate system. This is because (1) the surface is where most sunlight is absorbed, (2) the atmosphere is then convectively coupled to the surface, and (3) the surface and atmosphere together are the ONLY way for the Earth to radiatively cool to space in the face of continuous solar heating.
But, as we will see, the detailed profile of recent warming with depth in the ocean does appear to have additional information about climate sensitivity that is not apparent from surface warming alone.
The bottom line is that 40 years of warming of the 0-700 meter ocean layer has been so modest that, even if we assume it was caused by the GISS forcings (which Hansen believes will eventually cause strong warming) , it corresponds to low climate sensitivity anyway.
In other words, the oceans have not warmed enough to support the IPCC’s predictions of future warming.
The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore
Even though the model I use is admittedly simple, this does not really matter because, in the global average, long-term temperature change is only a function of 3 basic processes:
(1) the strength of the forcing (imposed energy imbalance on the climate system, due to whatever);
(2) the strength of the climate system’s resistance to that forcing (net feedback, which determines climate sensitivity); and,
(3) the rate of ocean mixing (which affects surface temperature, which affects the rate of energy loss to space through feedback processes).
It appears that the vertical profile of ocean warming could be a key ingredient in getting a better idea of how sensitive the climate system is to our greenhouse gas emissions. The results here suggests the warming has been considerably weaker than what would be expected for a sensitive climate system.
The sensitivity number I estimate — 1.3 deg. C — arguably puts future warming in the realm of “eh, who cares?”
It will be interesting to see how the next IPCC report, now in the early stages of preparation, explains away the increasing discrepancies between their climate models and the observations. Since IPCC outcomes are ultimately driven by desired governmental policies and politicians, rather than science, I’m sure the wordsmithing (and figuresmithing) will be artfully done.
Global Warming Can Trigger Extreme Ocean, Climate Changes, Scripps-led Study Reveals Scientists use deep ocean historical records to find an abrupt ocean circulation reversal caused by greenhouse gas warming
"The earth is a system that can change very rapidly. Fifty-five million years ago, when the earth was in a period of global warmth, ocean currents rapidly changed direction and this change did not reverse to original conditions for about 20,000 years," said Nunes. "What this tells us is that the changes that we make to the earth today (such as anthropogenically induced global warming) could lead to dramatic changes to our planet."
The global warming of 55 million years ago, known as the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), emerged in less than 5,000 years, an instantaneous blip on geological time scales (the researchers indicate that 5,000 years can be considered an upper limit and they believe the warming could have unfolded much more quickly than geological records can show them).
"Overturning is very sensitive to surface ocean temperatures and surface ocean salinity," said Norris, a professor in the Geosciences Research Division at Scripps. "The case described in this paper may be one of our best examples of global warming triggered by the massive release of greenhouse gases and therefore it gives us a perspective on what the long-term impact is likely to be of today's greenhouse warming that humans are causing."
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Science Support Program. IODP is sponsored by NSF and Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The JOI Alliance (JOI, Texas A & M University Research Foundation and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University) manages scientific drilling operations conducted aboard the U.S.-sponsored drilling vessel, on behalf of IODP.
What's the history of NISA?
The agency was established in 2001 as part of administrative reforms under the late Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, who wanted to drastically restructure the government's various ministries and agencies.
NISA was formed by basically combining part of the nuclear regulatory section of the Natural Resources and Energy Agency, which also answers to METI, and part of the now-defunct Science and Technology Agency, which was folded into the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry.