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: butcherguy
a reply to: anonentity
Martha's Vineyard would be colder. If the Gulf Stream stops, we get a new ice age.
I'm thinking that the fires (check out the biggest one in Russia) are creating enough sun blocking that it's contributing to what's going on.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: drewlander
Of course water vapor is a greenhouse gas. A powerful one. But the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent upon the temperature. The warmer it is, the more water vapor it can hold.
It's different with CO2. CO2 content is not temperature dependent. If the temperature rises or falls, it doesn't really matter much. As long as we keep burning coal and stuff like we are, the CO2 content will continue to rise.
So, as CO2 causes temperatures to increase, it also causes water vapor content to increase. This leads to things like heavier snow and rainfall when precipitation does occur. Oh, and still warmer temperatures (because more water vapor). Positive feedback is the term used.
A slowdown of the North Atlantic current could be a result of warming for two reasons. Something that keeps the current flowing is the fact that at its "apex", the cooled water begins to sink (because cool water is heavier that warm water) this enables warm water from the south to move in to take the cool water's place. Warmer water won't sink so much, slowing the current. But Greenland is also dumping a lot of fresh water into the North Atlantic (because of ice melt). Fresh water also does not want to sink.
No, it's not going to cause another glacial period. But it sure is going to disrupt climates even more, especially in Europe.
No one says we should burn less coal.
Fixing anything comes with a price. But it usually results in better, more efficient ways of doing things. Short term thinking benefits, who?
Fixing the climate comes with a price, and thats why climate science is truly capitalists albatross stuck on the neck of a free market.
Not highly. Not unless you're on Mars, where it condenses into snow at the poles. But when you're talking about temperatures found on Earth, no.
Pretty sure co2 is highly temp dependent.
It is a gas subject to entropy and "sucks" heat from the surrounding air.
Solve climate change in a way that does not involve transplanting more of my money into the pockets of mostly one person sitting at the top.