Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

4.5+ Billion dead from Global Warming by 2012?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.

In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I suspect these type of articles are to get people to take climate change more seriously, but I am not so gung-ho about the media's methods of frightening folks about mass extinction based on a new hypothesis. After awhile people get desensitized to "crying wolf syndrome" and then the problem won't be taken seriously.

Seems video games can desensitize people to violence so why not media propaganda about the climate?


Psychologists Produce First Study On Violence Desensitization From Video Games
"The results demonstrate that playing violent video games, even for just 20 minutes, can cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence," said Carnagey. "Participants randomly assigned to play a violent video game had relatively lower heart rates and galvanic skin responses while watching footage of people being beaten, stabbed and shot than did those randomly assigned to play nonviolent video games.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Clathrate gun hypothesis Wiki

Maybe I am wrong, and methane will choke most of us dead and people need to be scared witless...time will tell.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by Regenmacher]




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I know that it would be very expensive but i think one solution to stopping the melting of the permafrost would be to build like a giant bubble dome over the permafrost and then install tons of industrial air conditioners. I knoe it would cost a lot of money but it might save the world.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
4.5 billion??? This is huge! I can't even imagine the scale. It seems all we do is destroy the planet and then support consequences. But it is a bit unfair that we pay for our parents mistakes and our children will pay for ours.

My personal opinion is that naval war in the past 150 years had a great impact on the climate state today. And the climate is continuing to change and we keep on fighting naval wars.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Well, I do think that people that live within fifty miles of the coastlines are sort of taking their lives into their own hands. I don't know about 4.5 billion people being dead by 2012. Although, I suppose it's not out of the question.

[edit on 16-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 16-1-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher


Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



I sure do wish the scientific comunity could get their acts together. Just last week they said it would be caused by a super volvcano not global warming


It would devastate the planet. Climatologists now know that Toba blasted so much ash and sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere that it blocked out the sun, causing the Earth's temperature to plummet. Some geneticists now believe that this had a catastrophic effect on human life, possibly reducing the population on Earth to just a few thousand people. Mankind was pushed to the edge of extinction.

Source



Note it states the temperature will plummet which means it will get cold




[edit on 1/16/2007 by shots]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   
There is also millions of tons of methane hydrates under the sea. Remember 'The day the oceans boiled' Equinox back in 2001.
And guess what, we are now looking at them as a potential power source see www.ornl.gov...

Scary or what.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I sure do wish the scientific comunity could get their acts together. Just last week they said it would be caused by a super volvcano not global warming


It would devastate the planet. Climatologists now know that Toba blasted so much ash and sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere that it blocked out the sun, causing the Earth's temperature to plummet. Some geneticists now believe that this had a catastrophic effect on human life, possibly reducing the population on Earth to just a few thousand people. Mankind was pushed to the edge of extinction.

Source



Note it states the temperature will plummet which means it will get cold



Come on, Shots, are you serious? The two stories are unrelated. Death by knife...or death by gun...is still DEATH.

Regardless, I agree with Regenmacher. Crying wolf is NOT in our best interests.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Come on, Shots, are you serious? The two stories are unrelated.


Sorry Loam but we will have to agree that we disagree on this one. 2012 is still 2012 is it not and both stories relate to a catastrophe do they not?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Thats like 2.4 milliion per day if they started dying today isnt it?
I think itd be pretty hard to not notice 2.4 million people dying everyday.

How many people die everyday now?

Oh, I should probably mention for honestys sake that I think GW is crap.

But 2.4 million people? Thats gotta smell worse than Jersey!



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Is it just coincidence they are telling us the majority of the worlds population will be dead by 2012, that all important date..

They are prepping everyone for the natural changes that have already begun, and trying to spin it as if we are creating these changes. The climate has changed all on its own throughout history, long before we had polluting industries.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Should we suppress information to avoid panic and/or desensitization?

Speaking personally, I like to know the truth - I prefer to have a choice, and the opportunity to deal with information and reality in my own way. I tend not to panic - but yes, sometimes it takes much time and effort to process and assimilate new information. Time being a commodity our corporate masters do NOT wish us to have, 'processing' is a luxury denied to the public - and a 1st level priority conflict. Too bad, imo.

Early warnings are NOT "crying wolf," imo - they are early warnings to allow timely response and preventive action.

...Why are "early warnings" and "First Strikes" okay for the military, but NOT okay to preserve public health or for global warming?


RE: Global Warming Links to Disease

Global warming accommodates disease and pandemics in a variety of ways. For example:

Viruses can be preserved in ice for millenia, then released (along with methane) in a melt; also, warming allows diseases to flourish where they never have before, and; changing temperatures promote mutations.



Flu Viruses May Be Preserved in Ice for Millennia

Influenza viruses may be preserved in glaciers and Arctic ice for thousands of years and released into the environment when the frozen water is thawed, potentially touching off lethal pandemics, researchers said.

Global warming may speed the release of the microbes, increasing the frequency of outbreaks, according to a study in the December issue of the Journal of Virology. The study is based on tests of water and ice from three lakes in Siberia, where large populations of migratory waterfowl breed before traveling to North America, southern Asia, Europe and Africa.

..."One expectation in relation to this phenomenon would be an increased rate of release of these microbes during times of global, or local, warming events and a decrease during cooler periods," said the authors, led by Gang Zhang from Ohio's Bowling Green State University.

***

Climate change linked to health problems

In an area of climate change science with many uncertainties, researchers are piecing together the increasing risks of infectious diseases, food poisoning and water contamination as Canada gets hotter.

West Nile virus and Lyme disease are two examples of illnesses that could be spreading in Canada because of global warming. However, health officials are also keeping an eye on the progression of tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever to ensure they won't be able to creep north.

"Over the longer period, if a milder climate is sustained in Canada, then there is a possibility that these types of diseases could be introduced and established," said Dr. Paul Sockett, an infectious disease expert at the Public Health Agency of Canada.

***

Experts say global warming could spread disease

"When there are extreme weather events like flooding, researchers are finding new strains of E. coli," he said. "And with soils warming up on the west coast, researchers have found some funguses that are carrying diseases."




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I like to know too, but since it's an unproven hypothesis... then 4.5 billion dieing is a crystal ball stuff. In the 50's, the fear that the Russians could nuke us all by morning was a popular belief too, so what did that get us?

We have went from the mainstream view that there's is no global warming to yes there is global warming, but we can't do anything about it. Neither of those modes of thought will change our lifestyles towards a better world for our kids. Thus, I conclude we need more moderate assements of climate change based on proven methods, rather than extremisms that promote more polarization and stagnation than actual change.


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

We have went from the maintream view that there's is no global warming to yes there is global warming, but we can't do anything about it. Neither of those modes of thought will change our lifestyles towards a better world for our kids. Thus, I conclude we need more moderate assements of climate change based on proven methods, rather than extremisms that promote more polarization and stagnation than actual change.




I tend to agree - but my question still stands:

Why are "early warnings" and "First Strikes" okay for the military, but NOT okay to preserve public health or for global warming?


Global warming and public health strategies focus on prevention, and don't harm people.

Military 'First Strikes" hurt and kill.

So why does it work to market 'First Strike" military policies, but doesn't work to market non-harmful to life prevention policies for global warming and public health?

Is it just a better marketing strategy? Better control of the media?

Or is it just because there are big profits in 'First Strikes,' and no profit in climate and health prevention strategies?





posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Is it just a better marketing strategy? Better control of the media?

Or is it just because there are big profits in 'First Strikes,' and no profit in climate and health prevention strategies?


Massive population reduction by way of war is the most likely method we shall use to reduce global warming and disease. Not sure what else you expect from those in power, cause they have used that same method to resolve huge problems since the dawn of civilization.

People are still too complacent and/or easily fooled in regards to war as a means too.



[edit on 18-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Massive population reduction by way of war is the most likely method we shall use to reduce global warming and disease. Not sure what else you expect from those in power, cause they have used that same method to resolve huge problems since the dawn of civilization.

People are still too complacent and/or easily fooled in regards to war as a means too.


But the possibility of a war that kills 4.5 Billion? thats extremely unlikely isn't it? thats like nuking all of Asia. Even if a war went nuclear you aren't going to see the population reduced to 1.5 billion are you? Although I suppose there would be the effects of the Global warming, but still thats a lot.


World War I World War II
Affected States 36 62
Deaths 10 M 62 M
Injured 20 M 35 M
Conscripts 70 M 110 M

en.wikipedia.org...

Even with nuclear technology, do you think that 4.5 billion is likely?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Even with nuclear technology, do you think that 4.5 billion is likely?


I really don't know how many people it takes to die, before the elite feel that their powerhold is secured and global warming won't be a threat to them. I suspect they will just push the "war as a means" as far as it can go.

In any event, the first strike on global warming is already here and it's called death by war, but it's of little benefit to the average joe consumer. I see little benefit in scaring the crap out of people too, which leads me to believe this story may be psyops to promote more war.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Regenmacher]





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join