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.


The Day After Tomorrow?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:38 AM
I don't have time to make a detailed post explain why this so-called rapid change is nothing of the sort. However, I'll provide you with an example from recent history where that 1500 year onset of mini-ice ages was responsible for the fall of the first dynasty of Ancient Egypt. Remember this is a natural shift in the climate dictated by systems we have little understanding of. There was no possible anthropogenic influence on this change. Now this article is just a basic overview and it makes a mistatement from what the 1 hour BBC program actually states. Particularly this climate shift was a global phenomenon and not just localized to Europe as evidenced from analysis of sediment cores.

Oh one other example I don't have a website on it but it should be relatively easy to do a google for. Something like 74,000 years ago there was a super volcanic eruption that almost exterminated the human population. Obviously its not the same thing but its another of countless examples of rapid, severe climate changes that have no anthropogenic influence.

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 02:55 AM
Thank you PDTwitch, that was a really interesting link... to think they would even eat their children... Doing the math, every 1500 yrs and lasting 200 from the year 2200 puts it right around this time. I do recall seeing a story once on how the water was so low there recently that they had to walk out into the lakebed in order to fish. So if it lasts 200 yrs, the Nile region is in trouble. Do you know if there are similar records among American Indians that recorded a similar change for North America? Also, was there a similar event for the years around 700- 500BC?
I can look into it myself, no need to take up your time on it. I really appreciate that!

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by keybored
PDTwitch, thank you for the clarification. I can appreciate the time you took to respond to my post and correcting my assumptions.

When I said we neeed to let the planet stabilize, I was implying stabilization from our meddling.

What you are saying is that we have had a minimal affect on our climate and yet if this is the case, then why are we in such a pickle?
It would seem to me that we have had a greater impact than you state for the very reason that even scientists are looking into it. If this is a normal flux of the planet, then how is it that we have had ozone holes?
I have to ask if you got your info from a single source?
I'm not trying to be contentious on this issue, merely curious as to what is going on when scientists can't agree, industry continues to pump it out, emmision guidlines are being laid down, and yet we are only having a negligible effect?
Please explain since I see the patterns changing right in front of my eyes. When I was growing up in Canada, we saw numerous snow storms, maybe an inch or two. occasionally a blizzard would dump feet, but rarely... Now I see they drop feet at a time. There is more moisture in the atmosphere and that can only be from warming. You are saying this is a normal cycle of our planet? How could there be a record of how much snowfall fell when it would in turn melt? I am speaking locally of course and not of extreme Northern/Southern hemispheres where the snow stayed year round and we could measure how much fell in that particular winter.

I am still convinced that we (industrial revolution) have had a detrimental effet to our climate and like I said, if not, then why all the hoopla among the scientific community regarding Kyoto in the first place.
Thanks again for posting. ... in all honesty, if scientists can't agree on it then why should we even bother?
Also, this flux you speak of doesn't take into account the weakening magnetic field so this trend is by no means normal... how can we draw upon history to predict a situation unique to our day?
... I feel so dumb sometimes

In a geological timespan modern science of us humans has only been around for a very very very very short time, while the earth has been around for billions of years.

I think we know very little of how the climate actually works, for instance it's very often that meteorologists predict the wrong weather even for tomorrow or the next couple of days, how accurate is their weather predictions for next year? or for a couple of decades forward in the future?
We will just have to wait and see, but we can always try to predict the weather, though I think it will take awhile until we truly understand how it works.

So basicly what's happening to the climate now could be a completly natural process, and not have at least that much to do with our industrialization, or it could be vice versa.

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:55 PM
I agree with previous poster, this type of weather could predate history and we might not know. The Earth is strange that way. Also, the curent trend of hurricances is similar to the trends in the 30's, it migh be some sort of 70 year trend.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in