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.
reply to post by shells4u
droughts happen and always have but we're having such intense ones now along side flooding. where i live the lakes and streams are drastically lower than they were just a few years ago. we can't water our yards and trees are dying. i'd like to pretend global warming/climate change isn't real....... but it is and every year it gets worse.
Global warming has accelerated for 3 or 4 decades, why not 3 or 4 more? What is going to change in order to change the rate of acceleration? Will we stop burning so many carbon fuels? Not likely.
If the Arctic is ice free in a few more summers, global warming is likely to increase in acceleration, not de-acelerate.
With its present topography, surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to exceed
accumulation for global mean surface air temperature over 3.1 [1.9–4.6]°C above preindustrial,
leading to ongoing decay of the ice sheet. The reduction in surface elevation as ice is lost increases the
vulnerability of the ice sheet; taking this into account, one study estimated a lower threshold of 1.6 [0.8-3.2]°C.
The loss of the ice sheet is not inevitable because surface melting has long time scales and it might re-grow to its original volume or some fraction thereof if global temperatures decline. However, a significant decay of the ice sheet may be irreversible on millennial time scales. In the 21st century surface melting is projected to remain small on the Antarctic ice sheet, while we have medium confidence that snowfall will increase.
The upper bound scenario: 0.48–0.82 m (0.56–0.96 m by 2100 with a rate of rise 8–15 mm
yr–1 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5.
The panel will try to explain why global temperatures, while still increasing, have risen more slowly since about 1998 even though greenhouse gas concentrations have hit repeated record highs in that time, led by industrial emissions by China and other emerging nations.
An IPCC draft says there is "medium confidence" that the slowing of the rise is "due in roughly equal measure" to natural variations in the weather and to other factors affecting energy reaching the Earth's surface.
Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide.
Read more: www.smh.com.au...
There was no six-fold acceleration of sea level rise in the last decade, you just made that up.
There has been only one decade in the last 30-40 years with accelerated warming, from the late 80's up to 1998, fueled by two strong El Nino events.
Since then global warming has significantly decelerated with a surface temperature rise 'indistinguishable from zero' for more than a decade.
Why do you need to make stuff up?
Let's take an example. Quite a few people commute 20 miles each way to work. In a car, that's a half-hour each way, or an hour a day spent in travel. On foot, with an average walking speed of 3 mph, that's almost 7 hours each way, or almost 14 hours a day spent in travel. If one works eight more hours a day, that's 22 hours spent getting to the job, doing the job, and returning home. Seeing that a day consists of 24 hours, that leaves 2 hours to sleep, eat, shower.... and people wonder why I use the word "fantasy" so much when discussing this subject.
Bicycles.. wonderful devices. Ever try to ride one through the pouring rain? How about the snow? Do you really care so little for humans that you would decree they must endure the ravages of nature, the illnesses that would be caused by such exposure, and the physical exertion, impossible for some people, associated with bicycling long distances?
Now shift to the northern hemisphere - the Arctic :
60% more ICE
record ARCTIC ice
not to mention that Colorado received more rain in the last week than I have ever seen in my 63 years.
This is, of course, bollocks. Since the 1920's every single decade has been hotter than the prevous decade (except for the period from 1940-1950 which has been attributed to post-war industrial pollution, volcanic eruptions, and a switch in data collection methodology).
The bit about walking and biking was sarcasm :/
As for the rest, I don't see why global warming is a hoax or alternative energy is naysayed to death just because we can't run tractors on solar yet. There's a lot we can run on solar, wind or other... but yet you still insist that it's the oil cartels behind the global warming hoax to gain more power than they already have? They're coming up with alternatives to their own lifeline then suppressing themselves with lobbying and smear campaigns? What?
Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.
Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles). This was 1.13 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August, but well above the level recorded last year, which was the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Ice extent this August was similar to the years 2008 to 2010. These contrasts in ice extent from one year to the next highlight the year-to-year variability attending the overall, long-term decline in sea ice extent.
I came into the office this morning and noticed the new Sept. edition of National Geographic laying by the fireplace. I picked it up and read the cover "RISING SEAS". "Mapping a World Without Ice".
The speak of global warming as if it is some fact... when in reality it is not fact.
It continues on page 42 talking about global warming and the rising of seas, thermal expansion,and so on. It goes on to say "since 1900 global sea level has risen about 8 inches and now rising an eighth of an inch a year- and accelerating".
On page 49 I read, "if sea level rises an average of 3 ft. by 2100, winds, currents, and melting ice sheets will distribute the rise unevenly and coastal cities will be especially vulnerable.
Do people REALLY think coastal cities will last forever?
The Earth changes... Greenland was once green....
Not when it is a real possibility. I doubt anyone who has to ride a bike right now because they already can't afford gas would think it was sarcasm. You do realize there are already people in this country in that position, right?
I find the fact that you take such things lightly to be highly offensive.
Is the whole issue a joke to you, or just the part about people getting hurt?
Simply put, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants it to be true, regardless of how desperately you or anyone else dreams about or writes about or prays about some miraculous form of energy appearing to suddenly remove our dependence on oil, it just isn't going to happen that way.
Wind: Great, it works, but any time you remove energy form a system, you decrease the energy of that system. How many windmills will it take before we realize the climate really is shifting because we affected the prevailing wind patterns?
Solar: Despite decades of research, millions of innovators, vast sums of money that would fund several smaller countries for decades, it don't work. Period. It works fine for low-power, DC-based, isolated systems that are difficult to hook up to conventional power, but that's all. And tractors will never run on solar energy, at least not in our lifetime. The necessary amount of power simply isn't available; the sun isn't strong enough.
Carbon credits are not levied based on efficiency or on method of production. They are levied across the board.
Of course, that's after Phase Two... Phase One is to get the carbon credit scam in place, which has already occurred in many developed countries. Once it is in all the major powers, the UN can step in and demand it everywhere in the name of Global security (or whatever they choose to call it). Then Phase Two is to either use the dollar's status to have it implemented as the currency standard for carbon credits, or implement the Amero instead of the dollar, still maintaining Western control over the use of energy and still maintaining the US currency as the IRC and maintaining our financial status.
Do you not find it interesting that these reports about how we are all doomed to freeze in a fiery flood come out when our plans in the Middle East go awry?
As a final point, the oil cartels really do not care if you are using alternative energy. They already own stock in all the working alternative energies; where do you think the money for those hugely expensive wind turbines came from?
Yes my post history on this subject is quite indicative that I take such things lightly. (Sarcasm)
I have endless faith in humanity's innovative capacity. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that we are going to have to figure out an alternative to eventually, be it 50 years or 500 provided we last that long.
What? We are not capturing wind thus removing it from the climate. Just simply allowing it to turn turbines and generate power. How... I don't even...
I think you overestimate how much has been invested in research or development. Not to mention the cronyism that pocketed hundreds of millions with nothing to show for it and before you start hopping up and down with exactly's a bunch of assholes behaving badly doesn't warrant turning your back.
It's an idea that needs to stop being pitched and a method that needs to be done away with.
Pure inanity. The UN only has as much power as the United States is willingly to lend it and member nations are not required to participate in any kind of carbon program.
Climate reports come out on a near daily basis.
Oh I'm sure they own plenty of stocks in renewables as well as having their own back-up plan to stay in the energy business if we burned the last drop of oil and vapor of natural gas tomorrow but I don't think they've invested a dime more than they've had to and purely for utility requirements per state.
As for those hugely expensive wind turbines?