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.

 

We need to stop.

page: 3
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So we are battling the consequences of coming out of a mini ice age and the effects of CO2 on the Atmosphere. The earth went into a mini ice age around 1200 AD due to a massive solar minimum and 3 large volcano eruptions, and this lasted until around 1850. When we look back at the 1600 and 1700 it was a rather devastating time with extreme cold temperatures to the point the Thames (England) and Hudson (New York) rivers would freeze over and was commonly used as transportation in the winter. The revolutionary war had crazy cold winters and much of this harsh environment really inhibit early colonization of America.

As we move forward we really do not know what normal is and add to all this there is the political side of Carbon Tax and narratives to control the population when that narrative suggests humans are 90% the cause of what is going on. I say this with the understand that humans are part of the problem with our massive CO2 admissions but I don't think we have a clue to what percentage of our current climate change is actually human created or is just the normal departure from a very cold climate period.


All this pollution they say is causing the warming is actually the only thing that's slowing it down. Notice that it didn't start getting really hot until we started putting all these new laws in place and changing to "green energy."




posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: TheRedneck


plant life will flourish, and that means more food. The growing season will lengthen, allowing more land to be used for crops. What part of more food is bad, exactly?


The part where the flourishing plant gets flushed away, burnt to a crisp or blown away by the weather extremes.


"Hey guys, we need to clean up the environment to stop the global warming we're causing!"

Meanwhile, we've been coming out of a mini ice age so warming is normal.

"We must do more! It's getting hotter and hotter! We're having record heat years!"

Failing to realize that the cleaner the atmosphere, the hotter we get.

Keep up the great work, you're only making it hotter.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

So you're awnser is... keep polluting!

Real smart..



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

There is a scene at the end of Idiocracy where Not Sure is asked to help with the nuclear meltdowns under way elsewhere in the world. Remembering that the solution for dead crops was to "throw toilet water on them," one guy yells out "I know! Let's throw toilet water on the reactors!" The point is that the person making the suggestion was so clueless about why the water worked on the crops, he couldn't grasp what even a reasonable suggestion was.

Then we have this from you:

So you're awnser is... keep polluting!


I'm going to ignore the fact that you misused "you are" and misspelled "answer"... two glaring typos in 52 characters; I'll just be thankful you didn't type more. What I want to focus on is the fact that your statement is so painfully in context of what one would expect from watching Idiocracy. I would hope that you are aware that the people in that movie are not only fictitious, but are not intended to be role models.

I remember the old animated series, "Beavis and Butthead." Matt Groening made a statement at one point that he never intended anyone to mimic the two characters... they were intended to be an example of what not to mimic, but to Groening's amazement, they became role models for many people. That is not a good thing. Trying to be like the characters in Idiocracy is not a good thing.

LSU2018 was referring to the established fact that airborne particulate matter can block sunlight from reaching the ground and thereby induce global cooling. It is established because we have literally seen that mechanism in action during our lifetimes. Large volcanic eruptions throw millions of tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere (along with copious amounts of carbon dioxide) and the resulting dimming of the penetrating solar rays causes the planet underneath that area to cool quite substantially until the particulate matter settles out of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide also introduced is such a minor offset to this cooling effect that it is not even taken into consideration.

So yes, if the concern is that the planet might warm up by 2 degrees Celsius or so, particulate matter in the atmosphere would seem to be a solution. If, however, the concern is to have clean air, it would not be a solution. If one's concern is that the planet may be warming slightly, the 400ppm carbon dioxide level might be a concern (I am being generous here with the potential effects), but if one's concern is clean air, then 400ppm, 500ppm, 700ppm, even 900ppm is not a concern. Based on that, it appears your concern is more over a slight warming trend than over having clean air. I happen to disagree and think clean air is preferable, and I suspect strongly that LSU2018 would agree with me.

Now, can you come up with a response that doesn't sound like it came from an Idiocracy script? Strongfp made some major errors in his statement, but he at least responded with intelligent (if misinformed) replies.

TheRedneck




top topics
 
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join