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.

 

Yes the Atlantic current is down to the danger level hence the fires.

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 09:04 PM
link   
This is very interesting with regards to proxy climate models, which line up with the current drop in the speed of the Atlantic current which at the moment is the same as it was about thirteen thousand years back, At that time the European forests collapsed, and burnt. For once the scientist agree that its slow down will have some bad consequences which are taking shape and have been since 2019. Changes in precipitation on the one hand and the changes to the current rain bands.It seems that the slowdown causes the build-up of warm water south of Greenland, "The warm spot" Which is an indicator of what is happening to the deep return current. On a more pleasant note, Marthas Vinyard gets warmer.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Martha's Vineyard would be colder. If the Gulf Stream stops, we get a new ice age.
the science



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 09:31 PM
link   
So fires ... on the west coast ... are caused by the Gulf Stream ... on the east coast.

Fires are a natural part of the west coast ecosystem. They have plants in that ecosystem that cannot propagate unless the seeds are burned. That should tell you something right there, but instead, man has done everything he can to prevent any and all serious forest burns for decades now. What do you think eventually happens when we do that?

**EDIT **

Found a picture to illustrate what I mean about forest management differences.


edit on 12-8-2021 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 09:36 PM
link   

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.
the science


You have to remember that the consensus "scientists" always tell you the opposite of what is actually happening. The long winter is coming.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Its pointless to debate with these people who also argue that c02 is a greehouse gas causing the earth to warm but do not accept that h20 is a greenhouse gas. One of these things I can be taxed on directly and the other is completely divorced from me. And as we know, the only way to cool global warming is with the sweat off a common mans back.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

I mean in terms of climate, drought cycles do impact fire chances, but La Nina conditions which are ironically times of cooler temps are actually more likely to bring about dryer, more drought-like conditions and thus more fires.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 10:33 PM
link   
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.

edit on 8/12/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Are you writing a script for "The Day After tomorrow " sequel . ?

Lets Call it " The Day After tomorrow 2 Mother Natures Revenge "

This time She will have no mercy.

No Dennis Quaid
No Jake Gyllenhaal

Just pure scare tactics.


edit on 12-8-2021 by asabuvsobelow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I suspect this is a world wide ocean current issue that in my opinion has been brought on by the sun cycle we're just coming out of now. 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.

Back in I think 2012 (I'll try and search for it), a woman (again not sure of her credentials) said that the western United States, due to currents in the Pacific, would return to a low rainfall high heat desert environment. I might have it on one of my old computers as a PDF. It was some sort of study that was published during the world is ending 2012 celebration.

It didn't have anything to do with El Nino if I recall. The point being that this sort of news has been around for at least 8 years, probably longer.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: billxam




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.


In the Northern hemisphere prevailing winds are from the West. Smoke from Russia is not affecting the North Atlantic.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No one says we shouldnt burn less coal. US coal consumption was at its highest under clinton and it has been in decline since. The energy policies between the late 70s and early 90s caused this spike as power plants shifted away from petrol to coal because petrol saw increasing scarecity in the 70s. In the 90s i remember buying a gallon of gas for as cheap as 65 cents per gallon. Hooray! Gas crisis was completely averted, now enter global warming. Over the last 10 years coal consumption in the US has been driven down. A giant portion of US coal plants are closing or transitioning to alternatives and for the record, the consumption here was NEVER as high as india or china. China alone burns 8x more coal than the US.

So again, no one is complaining about coal reduction. Its that it never ends. Next it will be petrol. Then we will find lithium battery fires are wrecking the environment. Then we will move to a power grid backed by some nuclear energy and it never ends until your right to travel has been revoked. Fixing the climate always comes with a price, and thats why climate science is truly capitalists albatross stuck on the neck of a free market.
edit on 12-8-2021 by drewlander because: tired and annoyed.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:18 PM
link   

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.



Pretty sure co2 is highly temp dependent. Or maybe temp changing is more accurate.
It is a gas subject to entropy and "sucks" heat from the surrounding air.
Either way the co2 subject is highly debatable.

the big lie about co2



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander


No one says we should burn less coal.

I take it that's a typo?

Coal production has declined because natural gas is cheaper. The previous administration claimed they could revive coal. They couldn't, in spite of reducing regulations.


Fixing the climate comes with a price, and thats why climate science is truly capitalists albatross stuck on the neck of a free market.
Fixing anything comes with a price. But it usually results in better, more efficient ways of doing things. Short term thinking benefits, who?



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

If gulf stream stops it means more cold air from siberia to Scandinavia and northern Europe, temperature goes down about 10 celsius in north, colder summers and harder winters.
India, South America and West Africa will get more heat and food production is in jeopardy in those areas.

More storms to Europe and sea level rise to East coast of US. Amazon forest takes a hit too also antartica melts more.

When i heard this over week ago, i remembered the movie The Day after Tomorrow as in that movie Gulf stream stopped with doomsday results


edit on 12-8-2021 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, Typo. Corrected. 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.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7




Pretty sure co2 is highly temp dependent.
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.


It is a gas subject to entropy and "sucks" heat from the surrounding air.
What?

edit on 8/12/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander




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.

There are a lot of people inventing and innovating technologies which are more efficient and closer to carbon neutral. You know what new industries create? Jobs.

But I get that some people can't think beyond the end of their wallet and worry that if someone else makes money it must be bad.
edit on 8/12/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I think that we always have a few good scenarios and a few bad ones which balance out and become the norm for us. But now and then over the millennia, you get the bad scenarios all at once which have the habit of peaking at the same time.On the surface of it, a drop of fifteen percent in the ocean flow doesn't seem much. But in the past when it has reached this stage , The European forest cant grow, Greece is burning Turkey the same, in the old days that was your wood gone, if they couldn't keep warm in the Northern winters you had to move someplace else. How does that work out in a society that is this complex ? I guess we are going to find out.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Try reading the link before responding.
It's a huge writeup.
I'm on a phone. All thumbs.
It's all in the link.

"What?"
It has the effect of cooling the surrounding air.
It doesn't layer, it mixes immediately.
If not we would all be dead from breathing and plants.
The effects of co2 are debatable.



posted on Aug, 12 2021 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7




It has the effect of cooling the surrounding air.
No it doesn't.


It doesn't layer, it mixes immediately.
Pretty much. And the more of it there is, the less heat escapes to space.




top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join