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.

 

'Polar Vortex' to Blast Frigid Air Over Much of US

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainEnigma
 


Sudden Stratospheric Warming is one of the things that can cause the polar vortex walls to weaken.




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Pray tell how much influence did we have on this? weather.com


Historical Winter Storms ? 1800s
The 19th century had several notable winter weather events.
The "Year without a Summer"
In 1816, Savannah, Georgia, celebrated the 4th of July with a high temperature of 46°F! Because it was so cold across the eastern U.S., crops were ruined as the growing season was shortened. Snow even fell in June, the heaviest in New England between June 6th and 11th, creating snow drifts 18 to 20 inches in parts of Vermont.
This cooler than normal weather also contributed to crop failure in Canada and Western Europe. There was also sunspots on the sun visible to the naked eyes. This combined with the unusual amount of volcanic dust in the stratosphere might have lead to global cooling.
It has been theorized that a series of volcanic eruptions in earlier in the decade ejected billions of cubic yards of fine volcanic dust high into the atmosphere. On St. Vincent Island in the Caribbean, Soufrière erupted in 1812. In the Philippines, the Mayon Volcano erupted in 1814, and Mount Tambora, located in Indonesia, erupted in 1815.
The Blizzard Of 1888
The Blizzard of 1888 affected the eastern United States from March 10th through March 14th.
It began as a weak area of low pressure that formed in the northern Gulf of Mexico on March 10th before tracking up through Georgia to the North Carolina coast by March 11th. Moving slowly northward on March 11th and 12th, the storm remained relatively stationary off the southern New England coast on March 12th and 13th.
Light amounts of snow fell from the mountains of Tennessee up through the state of Maryland, while heavier snow fell from New Jersey up through eastern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and much of southern New England, except Rhode Island and Cape Cod.
The largest city in the nation at that time, New York City, was blanketed by snow, as photographs taken after the event showed. After a balmy, unseasonable day before, snow began falling around midnight on the night of March 12th. Blizzard conditions developed as temperatures plummeted and fierce winds began to blow.
By the time the storm ended early on March 14th, 22 inches of snow had fallen in New York City. In Brooklyn 26 inches fell with 32 inches in White Plains. The relentless winds associated with the storm blew snow on the ground into tremendous drifts.
Over four feet of snow fell in the Albany and Troy areas of northeastern New York state. Similar amounts of snow were measured in areas such as Middleton, Connecticut.
More than 400 people lost their lives in the Blizzard of 1888, primarily due to exposure to strong winds and cold temperatures.
Storm Of The 19th Century
Between February 1 and 14, 1899, a cold wave caused a massive East Coast blizzard and induced bitter cold temperatures across two-thirds of the Nation, from the Rockies to the Atlantic Ocean.
"In a sense this is probably the first and only time true blizzard conditions existed in the state of Florida. In fact, Florida probably experienced their only blizzard in history with this particular storm," says Paul Kocin, Winter Weather Expert for The Weather Channel.
View the story of this "storm of the century" through our Special Report, complete with video documenting the event.


Population in US - 76,212,168
Population in Canada - 5,500,000
Population in World - 1,700,000,000

Niagara Falls froze over and people walked on it


Until 1912,visitors were allowed to actually walk out on the ice bridge and view the Falls from below. February 24th of 1888 the local newspaper reported that at least 20,000 people watched or tobogganed on the ice. Shanties selling liquor, photographs and curiosities abounded. On February 4th 1912 the ice bridge broke up and three tourists lives were lost.


Niagara will have a hard time freezing over now as measures are taken to prevent this, also in the article above. The power generated by the falls is needed so they can't allow it to freeze.

I remember the 1970's being much colder that the last 20 to 40 years, that is when they made ski masks and you darn well wore them. We even had furry hats that you wore with your midi coat. That is also when a parka was necessary. So we have been here before some of us just don't remember.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Actually there have been articles about warming climates on the other planets.

They were all wrong and have been used by people to create a larger gap in what people think is happening.


The following is speculative thinking.

People have changed the Earth since long before we think they did. The Roman empire caused a deforestation of Europe for example. The plagues that decimated European populations are responsible for the forests around for the colonial period... Making it possible for the ships to be build, used to travel the oceans.

There are remains found of cities in the Amazon Jungle, and Asian jungles. Do you think people build there cities in the middle a huge jungle for fun ?
I don't think so.

Since large populations have always been around, the societies they created have been falling into oblivion too. With them, how many people ?
Nature took over the minute it got its change.

How much fossil fuels are can be converted from gases into new forests ? How much time does it take ?

Does any man made creation make it impossible for nature to replenish ? Only people stop it from happening.
I don't believe the destruction of nature, is a good enough reason for an explanation of any climate change.

Almost all gases will be consumed back into the Earths environment when you let it happen. How big can any climate chance be, when it could be solved so easily ?

Anyway...

I'm no expert, so... I'm probably wrong. I don't like it though. Please enlighten me if I am.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Speaking of hysterics....


You found my post hysterical? Interesting - you must have a very low hysteria threshold :-)

Surely you intended the rest of that post for someone else, in as much as I was addressing someone that accused a friend of dishonesty - and they did it dishonestly. And kinda excitedly

But, at least I gave you an opening

You're welcome

:-)


edit on 1/4/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I don't know what kind of temperatures they are forecasting for you guys up in the Nawtheast. We are going to have the coldest temperatures it has been here in twenty years. They are saying that records that have stood for almost fifty years in some locations here in WV for the Sixth and the Seventh will far with this cold snap. That is on top of the rain that's going to flash freeze tomorrow night once it changes over to snow and not including the six inches of snow we are forecast to get down here.

This is what the National Weather Service has stated for here.
...WIND CHILL WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM MONDAY EVENING THROUGH
TUESDAY AFTERNOON...

* LOCATIONS...SOUTHEAST OHIO...NORTHERN KENTUCKY...MUCH OF WEST
VIRGINIA...AND EXTREME SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA.

* WIND CHILL READINGS...AS LOW AS 35 BELOW.

* TIMING...MONDAY EVENING THROUGH TUESDAY MORNING.

* IMPACTS...VERY COLD TEMPERATURES COMBINED WITH STRONG GUSTY
WINDS WILL CAUSE DANGEROUS WIND CHILL VALUES. PROLONGED EXPOSURE
COULD LEAD TO FROSTBITE OR HYPOTHERMIA...LIMIT OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES.

* WINDS...WEST 15 TO 20 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 30 MPH.

* TEMPERATURES...RANGING FROM 10 BELOW TO 10 ABOVE ZERO.



I'm definitely NOT looking forward to Monday and Tuesday.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by gimmefootball400
 


Hey Gimme! Good to see ya. Tuesday is going to be the worst of it for us with a low of 16 not sure what the wind chill is going to be and too tired to look atm, below 40 and I turn into a cry baby so I'm not looking forward to that at all, it could be worse though as the national map that Beezzer put up shows. Apparently, when this collapse of the polar vortex walls happens, it can mean weeks of cold air spilling down from the arctic. Stay Warm and be really careful near those icy tracks. Happy New Year Gimme.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


You are tired of hearing about a serious threat to you and the rest of the inhabitants of this spec of rock? Make sure to close your mind or some new ideas might get in. That is the definition of willful ignorance. I guess you'd rather hear about alternate universes or God. Something that can't be observed.

If there was justice in this world, ignoramuses that cause or ignore global catastrophe would the the first to suffer the consequences. There is no justice though.

Science never said the Earth was a green house anyway. You think you broke the case wide open. I have to snicker at that. You need to read.you can start here



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
To quote Yogi Berra "I knew that record would stand until someone broke it"
This has happened before but the hue and cry was not about climate change the claim was this was proof that the next ice age was on the way. Consider that one of the prognosticators about the new ice age is now a firm fan of climate change.
There are changes man is doing to the environment no doubt. Will these changes effect the worlds climate? Presently all research seems to support their platform. When some facts disagree they suddenly discover they were wrong about that little item but a new study proves it supports their theory from a new more terrifying angle.
My challenge to today's climate change followers is to describe what the environmental results in the next 10 or 20 years could disprove their theory. If they cannot describe how to disprove the theory it's not based on science.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


You are tired of hearing about a serious threat to you and the rest of the inhabitants of this spec of rock? Make sure to close your mind or some new ideas might get in.


I wasn't going to comment, but...

I never once said that I didn't think that the climate was changing or that it was a threat, so your passive agressive ad-hominem attempt at being funny is not well received.

What I'm tired of hearing is that just about (not all) every thread on a weather anomaly, every fluctuation, is blamed on global warming. I'm tired of hearing humans as the blame for something that is cyclical in nature, and of which, we think we understand because we have computers that can tell us what MIGHT happen with the weather in the next 7 days, therefore they MUST be right about the weather in the next year, 10 years, 100 years? Please... computers and models only know work with what they know, and we don't know enough to predict the weather with any reasonable accuracy more than 7 days from now, so I should put my faith and energy into those same systems and their predictions for the future of the planet?

There is also such a thing as being so open-minded that your brains fall out, which it sounds like a camp you pitch tents with.

I, on the other hand, actually believe in the scientific process I've mentioned in my previous posts (which apparently you didn't bother to read), to prove something that places blame at the feet of all mankind and demands consequences that would impact us all. Others have said the same thing, so I'm not going to digress.


That is the definition of willful ignorance. I guess you'd rather hear about alternate universes or God. Something that can't be observed.


Completely off-topic comment, but even if I was interested in other subjects, why would that matter to you? Why would you bother even bringing something like this into the topic? Likely because your argument is vacant of any other real substance.

Secondly, after I have posted previously about the lack of observation with climate change, you failed to acknowledge that in those other posts, I called for MORE observation, so clearly you are making broad assumptions and only attempting to attack the merit of my character and not the content of my argument. Great debate skills.


If there was justice in this world, ignoramuses that cause or ignore global catastrophe would the the first to suffer the consequences. There is no justice though.


I really hope you aren't trying to infer that I would ignore global catastrophe or that you know a damn thing about me because karma is also another kind of justice, and I wouldn't want yours with that kind of thinking. Your common man may not be as ignorant as you think, sometimes they just lack the FACTS as you so eloquently demonstrate in your next comment.


Science never said the Earth was a green house anyway. You think you broke the case wide open. I have to snicker at that. You need to read.you can start here


You've got me all figured out I guess, the jig is up?
Science never said Earth was a green house, eh?

Know how to use Google? If you do, you'll find "global warming greenhouse effect" has about 6 million hits, but even if you want to say only 1 million are relative, I think you are making your position clear that you will say things that aren't true for whatever means you are justifying.

And WOW! Speaking of willful ignorance... do you bother to read your own sources or you just copy and paste the first link that you find on Google?

Science most certainly said the Greenhouse Effect was at play (which is what that thread was about and the confusion between the Earth and the real GE), and from YOUR source, it says the following words, which are sourced in Wikipedia from the IPCC report if you consider that science-y enough for you:


Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.


I don't need your advice on reading about the Greenhouse Effect or about the merits of one of my threads, but thanks. And I definitely don't base all of my conclusions or understandings on Wikipedia, there are still real scientific papers and journals that the less willful ignorant folks prefer to read.

Bringing up another thread that I posted to try to diminish my character is just another passive aggressive attempt at trying to make yourself sound more intelligent? (not really sure what your point is)

You don't even read your own sources before you put your foot in your mouth, so I suggest you actually read the thread and the sources provided in it, rather than rely on skimming Google for Wikipedia references to disprove an entire set of papers written on the subject. Although, if you didn't bother to read from your own sources, why should I expect you to take anything else sourced or written into consideration? I digress.

You are textbook for one of the folks I mentioned previously and illustrate exactly what I said and why I try to avoid these threads... You'll come on here and start claiming my sources are wrong, yours are right. My views are wrong, yours are right. Your sources are more legit, etc, etc, etc. just to disagree and feel like you are cheer-leading for the "right" side or cause, and completely ignore what I and others have said in this thread and other threads about global warming - it's just too soon and too infantile a science, there is not enough data, we don't understand it and we're a long way off from being in a place where we can blame one thing or another, or make a noble gas a criminal convicted of a crime, or place the blame on humans.

IMO, what you just did in your post was no better than a monkey flinging poo at the zoo, and that's not my kind of thing, so have fun with that.

~Namaste



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


So......from what you are saying in a nutshell is, the colder it gets like it has been in the past, is because it gets warmer at the Poles at those times.

So since this has happened before, so many times and far worse than this many times, I would love to know what caused it before.

Cold makes it hot, Hot makes it cold I get it now !!!

Spin this way , spin that way , cycles!!

Now I can agree that polluting the planet massively can have some consequences, but SURELY you will understand that everyday normal people, are not behind this blast of cold air.

It is clear that many global warming parrots are seeing things the way they want too, and likely we are all being led around the edges of so-called "climate change".

And then it causes us that do NOT see it getting warmer at ALL, to question your sanity.

This is not good either, since something entirely different may be going on, something that has NOTHING to do with warming, or cooling.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
All I think is that

GAIA Theory by James Lovelock

Is probably at play as we speak........

We are no more (as a species) as part of an organism which is self regulating.......

The Earth is self regulating and the effects will magnify quickly....

Sweet dreams all

Regards

PDUK



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


No because that's actually the point of the thread. People keep saying winter is getting colder so global warming is a hoax... without understanding why extreme cold spells are in fact a symptom of arctic warming.

So, what are hot spells indicative of?

What about mild spells? They mean anything?

Harte



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I think that we need to look at the proposed "solutions" to Climate Change in order to determine validity.

If the solution is just higher taxes and wealthier politicians, then perhaps the skeptics have a point.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

edit on 1/5/2014 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think that we need to look at the proposed "solutions" to Climate Change in order to determine validity.

So, if the 'solutions' don't meet with your approval - that means Climate Change isn't real? Sounds like good, solid science to me :-)

No wonder some of you deniers don't trust the science - I don't think you get what science is


It is real, it is a problem - and getting out of this without being 'inconvenienced' doesn't seem likely

But, time will tell I guess - and, I don't say that with humor or a bit of hope that I'm right - I'd rather be wrong

So, in a weird way beezzer - I hope you're right and the whole thing is just make believe



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Kali74

To me this is at least a good part of the answer as to why if the planet is warming, it has been getting so damn cold in the winter. There's a lot more involved such as arctic amplification and the negative/positive phases of the Arctic Oscillation. Maybe those can be discussed throughout the thread.




So,
Like a typical sine wave.
The oscillation is a year round cycle of cooling and warming winter/summer. Since it gets warmer in the summer (high side of the sine wave) the natural equilibrium in a physical system would require a more extreme winter ( low side of the sine wave) to even out the cycle.

I couldn't front an opinion at this point but it's an interesting idea.
It sounds plausible.
edit on 5-1-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


I really wouldn't be calling people out about skim reading, one we all do it sometimes, two you clearly did it with my OP and as for getting sick of threads like this and trying to avoid them... no one forced you to come into this one and flip out on anyone. You're proving to be anything but unbiased though you claim to be and highly irrational on the topic. Namaste? Seems an oxymoron coming from you on this topic.



I, on the other hand, actually believe in the scientific process


You clearly don't. You have no respect for the massive amounts of studies and papers published on the topic nor the consensus that science has declared on the matter. You use the handful of scientists that are skeptical or oppositional (most of which other scientists dismiss because 9 times out of 10 they haven't followed scientific methods to make their claims). You say there is equal back and forth as if to promote the idea that there is an equal playing field and elude to people being stupid for choosing one (even though you clearly have yourself) when there is nothing equal going on here. There are only literally a handful of scientists with a handful of papers/studies that most of have not passed peer review and now they run around screaming that they're being treated unfairly much like a 5 year old insists everyone cheats because they lost.



so clearly you are making broad assumptions and only attempting to attack the merit of my character and not the content of my argument.


*cough*



Science most certainly said the Greenhouse Effect was at play (which is what that thread was about and the confusion between the Earth and the real GE), and from YOUR source, it says the following words, which are sourced in Wikipedia from the IPCC report if you consider that science-y enough for you:



Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.


The poster you are responding to is correct. Science never said earth was a greenhouse, and then you post a quote from their source saying see, science did say earth is a greenhouse... when the quote does no such thing, it says "greenhouse effect". There's a huge difference. If there's not a language barrier at play here, if not, there's a comprehension problem.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Indeed Badger.. It's even cyclical, although some will suggest we're unscience-like to look at such common sense displays...



One year even overlapped for a near complete replay on extreme drought conditions...separated by almost a century in time and a world of technology.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
While the folks up in North Dakota and Minnesota are getting -60 wind chills tomorrow (holy crap guys be careful!), we will see -15 all the way down here in Arkansas (unheard of). Thankfully it will warm back up to just really cold by Tuesday or Wednesday with highs getting up to around 40°. Overnight lows still well below freezing.

I haven't read the entire thread yet but I'm sure someone has mentioned HAARP by now, right?


Anyways, please stay safe folks, this is being billed as life threatening cold and it extends all the way down to the Florida panhandle. Craziness I tell ya.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by datasdream
 





My challenge to today's climate change followers is to describe what the environmental results in the next 10 or 20 years could disprove their theory. If they cannot describe how to disprove the theory it's not based on science


Global temperatures start to decrease.
Land ice growth in the Arctic.

To start with.

reply to post by ParasuvO
 




So......from what you are saying in a nutshell is, the colder it gets like it has been in the past, is because it gets warmer at the Poles at those times.


Not quite. I'm relaying information that suggests that warming at the poles can cause events that weaken the polar vortex walls. The vortex walls normally keep the extreme cold trapped at the arctic. When they weaken it allows that air to spill southward thus causing arctic temperatures to extend far south of the arctic.



It is clear that many global warming parrots are seeing things the way they want too, and likely we are all being led around the edges of so-called "climate change".


Rather it's clear that yourself and your ilk won't bother to look at the science. "Hot can't make cold! End of story!" Not bothering to think beyond that. Not realizing that no one is saying hot makes cold, see above.

reply to post by beezzer
 




If the solution is just higher taxes and wealthier politicians, then perhaps the skeptics have a point.


If that's the only message you are getting it's because that's all anyone you 'listen to' is allowing you to hear. Taxing the problem is a crappy solution, it's really a crying shame that the conservation ends there for half the voting population of the US.

reply to post by badgerprints
 


I wish it were so. Despite the fact that the Conservative view of people that accept man made global warming as scientific fact are equated to cult followers... we don't want it to be true anymore than anyone on the other side does. But to us, especially those passionate on the topic... it does no good to ignore the reality.

The ice in the arctic will continue to melt until it is gone, the arctic will continue to warm until it no longer drives northern climate or not in any way we are familiar with now, at least. Once the arctic stops throwing out any cold at all, the planet will warm at a much faster pace. All of these things are true of any kind of warming.

The planet has had warm periods before, it's had ice ages before. Both will happen again and again and again for as long as the sun is there and we maintain our orbit around it. Greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane and water vapor always have major/leading roles in a warming or cooling period but at this time science has ruled out all natural causes of warming... in fact by looking back at earth's natural cycles and orbital cycles, we should be in a cool period.

There's only one reason why we are warming at this time, we are adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere much faster than nature, barring catastrophic events such as massive volcanic eruptions, comets/asteroids crashing to our surface, would be releasing.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join