It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Cosmos: Global Warming

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 10:53 PM
Global warming eh?

"Summer may have officially arrived, but not at Lake Superior.

A Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources warden discovered some icebergs still afloat in Lake Superior near Madeline Island.

Amie Egstad spotted the floating ice – which was covered in resting seagulls – while doing a routine check of commercial nets in the largest of the Great Lakes.

The sight was at odds with data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the weekend, which declared all of the Great Lakes ice-free.

The announcement broke an unprecedented seven months of ice coverage, according to Policy Mic."

Read more: RineZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

"There was this big iceberg along with other ice packs and bergs floating around backside of Madeline Island area east towards Saxon Harbor,” Egstad said.

According to a National Geographic report, the summer temperatures of the Great Lakes are expected to be colder this year because more than 90 percent of the lakes had been covered in ice during this past winter. "

yup, sure is getting warmer.

edit on 44062 by SM2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:10 PM
a reply to: SM2

Do you happen to remember the Alar scare? Alar was a chemical sprayed on apples. An enviromentalist group spread the word that Alar was incredibly dangerous and children shouldn't have any or they'd be seriously damaged. After a couple of years, the whole thing was declared a hoax (after nearly destroying the apple farmers), but the leader of the organization said that it was justified because they wanted to "raise awareness" (They also made a ton of it in fundraising appeals.)

Global warming is very much the same. One thing we are sure of is that Government funding does not go to projects to disprove global warming. There will be much hardship coming from this, but the officials (if they're still in office, Obama won't be), will say they saved the world by doubling energy costs and sending billions to other countries.

This is one of those situations where I don't take any great pleasure in saying, "See, I told you so."

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:11 PM

I'll say again.....i don't think anyone is denying that climate change is real....what people are disputing is the "we did it all by ourselves" theory.

you site current CO2 levels, without acknowledging that there have been times in history when the levels were MUCH higher than today. you completely ignore that there have been times in history, much hotter than today, and you ignore the fact that in the 70's they were telling us that we had to worry about global COOLING, and another friggin ICE AGE....

sure, the climate is's done it before, and while we may have contributed a bit, we're not the singular or even the primary cause of it...

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 12:27 AM
a reply to: Daedalus

I'm fascinated by the change that has occurred in the discussion. It's almost as though the supporters of global warming were politicians. "My remarks were taken out of context," "Let me rephrase that," and "I misspoke."

I recall someone (was it Al Gore?) who led off the discussion with the claim that the world was getting hotter quickly, it was the fault of humans, and we would be flooded out and scorched if we didn't take action right away. I don't know how many tens of billions of dollars we wasted on that.

There's not much of that left. Earlier in the thread I was presented with a link which led to a poll for scientists. Basically, the two questions were "Do you think temperatures are warmer now than they were pre-1800?" and "Do you think humans have played a significant role in rising temperatures?" Putting "significant" in a poll question renders the question useless, because "significant" could mean anything.

There was no question asking if rising temperatures posed a threat to humanity.

Even with those very vague and broad questions, they could only get 82% to agree. How many would take Al Gore's position now? Obviously, far fewer. So many less, that is silly to claim there is a consensus on the subject. But why does it matter if governments claim there is?

The world invested almost a billion dollars a day in limiting global warming last year, but the total figure – $359 billion – was slightly down on last year, and barely half the $700 billion per year that the World Economic Forum has said is needed to tackle climate change.

I think I could find better things to do with a billion a day.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 01:36 AM
a reply to: charles1952

what's more, where did they pull the $700B figure from?

it sounds to me like they pulled it out of their ass....i mean, what does that money do?

how do you assign a monetary cost to combating nature itself?

additionally, i do think this latest "global warming" doom porn craze began with al gore, and his silly film "an inconvenient truth"...from it's insane assertions, to it's "recycled paper" packaging, the whole thing reeked of propaganda...

furthermore: why do i not get a "Dear Daedalus"? do you only save the dear part for people you either really like, or really dislike?

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 09:52 AM
a reply to: Daedalus

you site current CO2 levels, without acknowledging that there have been times in history when the levels were MUCH higher than today.

First, I do not ignore that there were times with a higher co2 level. The paleocene-eocene thermal maximum occurred 55 million years ago. There are two things to point out here. One, the sun was 2% less brighter then than it is today. The Co2 content in the atmosphere at the time was around 1000 ppm, and it was likely caused by the continent of India pushing up methane hydrates to the surface as it moved closer and closer to asia. Physics wise, it's important to point out that the same co2 content in the atmosphere today would have 40 % greater effect. Because, as we know, the sun is growing hotter and hotter.

The second thing to point out is the duration. This increase in co2 took THOUSANDS of years to happen. The forcing human beings are causing has occurred within a time frame of 2 hundred years, with an accelerating pace as China and India add to their fossil fuel usage.

So the two points are this:

1) The sun is brighter today than it was 55 million years ago, which means todays earth would need a lower co2 atmospheric concentration to maintain a climate suitable for life.

2) The Co2 in the atmosphere of the PETM occurred over a period of 10,000 or so years.

And how bout a third point?

3) 35-40% of life WENT EXTINCT because of these high levels of atmospheric co2.

As for the climate issue of "global cooling" in the 70's? This can be cleared up if you actually cared to read something about it. Here are the facts: chlorofluorocarbons cause global cooling. In the 1970s, scientists were overly-occupied with the effect that these sort of gases have on the upper atmosphere. Because the coal we were burning had large quantities of these reflective particles, there was concern.

But the important thing, and the rational thing, is not to get sidetracked by this piece of history. Carbon Dioxide has ALWAYS been the problem. From the 1890s onward, scientists have been concerned about the effect of Co2 from fossil fuels on the atmosphere. In the 1950s, there were scientists giving TV interviews about it.

The issue exists and it enjoys such a wide consensus amongst scientists BECAUSE IT IS DEADLY real.

posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 11:50 AM
a reply to: Daedalus

Dear Daedalus,

I see that I have some 'splainin' to do. The "Dear" and "With respect," are subject to the rules made by an eccentric old man, me.

If I am responding to a person's post which wasn't directed to me, I leave off the "Dear" as I have no idea how he will react, or if he is even sane. If I'm responding to a post directed to me, I will use "Dear." Once I have started to use "Dear" with a poster, I will continue to.

Some exceptions: If I'm dealing with one of the dozen or so posters with whom I have had a lengthy relationship, I'll start out with a "Dear." There are also a few posters who have behaved so dishonorably (not stupidly or blindly), or viciously that I will remove the "Dear" and "With respect." I hate to admit it but there are two or three posters for whom I have absolutely no respect, even as human beings. (There are even two that I will not be in the same thread with because of their obnoxious lack of honesty, decency, or honor.)

Now, back to work.

what's more, where did they pull the $700B figure from?

it sounds to me like they pulled it out of their ass....i mean, what does that money do?

Of course, you're right, and that's one of the saddest parts of this whole business. Daily, you will hear on this site or in editorial pages,"If we just reduced the military budget a little bit, we could provide clean water to the world, saving millions of lives." Or, "If we cut our aid to Israel (currently about $3 billion) we could do so much good." The global warming enthusiasts are diverting a billion dollars a day away from saving lives, slowing starvation, educating the poor, and fighting disease. They do it to fight a problem which they can't show was primarily caused by man (let alone modern, Western man), or is a net danger, or isn't stopping on it's own.

The Al Gore fan club is willing to let millions die of thirst, hunger, and illness, if they can research and fight a problem which may not exist, which man may not be able to solve, and which may not be a problem at all. Unfortunately, many place a cause in front of their eyes, be it climate, pay equity, GMOs, Walmart, Obama, Racism, Gay Marriage, or anything else. They form an opinion on it, and it is so close to their eyes that they can see nothing else. They refuse to consider information that contradicts their position, they don't consider the consequences of their proposed policy, they refuse to consider sharing resources with any one else's cause, and they see compromise as defeat.

Bringing people to their senses on Global Warming is a noble goal, of course, but in the grand scheme it doesn't matter much. There is a whole school of non-thinking that pervades Western thought and politics on many issues. That is what needs to be defeated if we are to remain rational.

With respect,

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in