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.

 

Irrefutable evidence showing climate change.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   


So since currently around 2/3's of the northern hemishpere is unusable for 6-9 months out of the year (siberia and n canada), how is it BAD that these vast fertile lands could become productive with a warming period?

It has happened before and it was a good thing......
Point out where I said it was bad! That is great, but what about all the lands that are effected, that are currently populated. It would only be the arrogance of ignorance that would lead one to cheer about all this new land whilst ignoring actual real people that will lose, in some cases, their entire island homes. Over 100 milion people live within a meter of the mean average sea level at the moment. So you do the math if we lose all that glacial ice. Anyway, who am I to suggest that we actually think about the effects on others of these observed glacial ice and climate changes. WTF am I thinking!

Anyway, well be finding out sooner then you or probably think.

Glaciers in west Greenland are melting 100 times faster at their end points beneath the ocean than they are at their surfaces, according to a new NASA/university study published online Feb. 14 in Nature Geoscience. The results suggest this undersea melting caused by warmer ocean waters is playing an important, if not dominant, role in the current evolution of Greenland's glaciers, a factor that had previously been overlooked.
www.nasa.gov...

Thanks for the reply.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Wait, you mean it would be bad for all the people that already live somewhere to lose their homes? When we could soon be harvesting the rich muddy lands of Siberia and Canada?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 




No it would be bad that they lose their homes. But I guess we can distract others from actually thinking about that by introducing an asinine argument about all the great land we will have in canada and alaska when all the ice melts.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by TV_Nation
The only problem that you fail to see is that humans are not causing this climate change.

The only problem you see is actually not even stated in the OP.
I clearly say this in the OP.

Its not about the blame.
We have to deal with this reality now, regardless of whether you think it is a natural cycle or AGW.

So you point out that there is a problem in that I fail to see that humans are not to blame. This is your problem because you have invented it as a problem.
This is called a strawman argument.


This is a natural cycle and nothing more.
But we need to act to the cycle.
That is my point. The cycle has consequences, the video and photographic evidence points to climate change. Therefor we need to react to it regardless of its cause.



Weather changes and it's not just about what is happening on earth that decides the outcome.
I agree, but we as humans can effect the outcome of climate change on billions of other humans, hence my point that we acknowledge it as happening and act accordingly.


We as humans have such a minute amount of climate data that is absurd to even think we can predict how our climate should stay or change.
The video evidence and photographic proof are not predictions. Read that twice so it sinks in.


There is nothing we can do about it IMO, but we can stop polluting the earth for other benefits.
You think that this is just about the weather. This is about how water will rise, how precipitation across the globe will change, how water ways and sources of irrigation and drinking water will dry up as glaciers melt for millions and millions of people. It will effect populations,food production, agriculture and livestock around the globe.


I find it so funny that we think that 100 years of climate data can even begin to tell the story of the earths cycles. People tend to forget that our time on this planet is basically a blip in time that means pretty much nothing let alone our tiny time-line of climate data.
What is funny is that we have hundreds of thousands of years of Ice core data, correlated with soil data and tree ring data. This details hundreds of thousands of years of earths climatic history.
And one of those records, the ice, is disappearing.
One of those records is disappearing, that has given us hundreds of thousands of years of its history.
And it is disappearing. Faster than we thought.

I think we ought to take note and act accordingly.


[edit on 7/3/10 by atlasastro]



I like how you state that even if it is not a man made problem then we still need to do something about it?

How do you go about changing something you have no control of.

And speaking of strawman arguments your statement about doing something weather it is man made or natural is exactly that...



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TV_Nation

I like how you state that even if it is not a man made problem then we still need to do something about it?

How do you go about changing something you have no control of.

And speaking of strawman arguments your statement about doing something weather it is man made or natural is exactly that...


Apparently you also missed his very good example, unless you can explain it away. Let me repeat it for you. Cancer is not man made. We still can and do something to combat it. Care to explain?



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro


Tell your son though, that Venus has an out of control greenhouse effect...



o really? that's the official version, i know, but there are several issues which aren't spoken about clearly enough.

the first is Venus' heat balance, which is dubious to say the least and more importantly, the heat is distributed uniformly, even though a day is longer than 250 earth days there (longer than a Venus year). the sun can't heat the far side, can it, so that would require lot of convection to keep it up and then there'd still be a huge difference in temperatures.


all well hidden behind that nearly impervious veil and sourced by nasa alone. this Venus greenhouse is likely part of the whole sham, just tbh, although you'll all consider me out of whack, just remember it when the time finally comes (hopefully).



Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by Long Lance
so, because there are glaciers that recede we are all doomed?
Point out where I say that lance, or the video states that, or the websites I linked say that.



oh, good we aren't doomed
well, have a nice day then and direct your energy to something worthwhile



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 
I fully understand your passion for this,However your argument will continue to be met with sarcasm from those whom will refuse to wake up. What I don't think they understand is at the end of global warming is the new Ice age. Which will decrease the populace greatly. And My concern with this information is that scientific results have been changing each year. The real unfortunate problem with the changes are, the estimated predictions of what will be the result in time are always far worse than the previous prediction. the example being how fast the glacial ice is melting. Also, I believe the next Ice age will come way to quick for anyone to adapt.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


When the "last" ice age ended the glaciers melted away forming the great lakes etc. This exposed and warmed what we now call north america....

What caused the glaciers to melt? and how was that bad?.....if mankind moved too close to the oceans, its out of his own ignorance, he can move away....but it is still left to be seen if sea level will rise......



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by atlasastro
 


When the "last" ice age ended the glaciers melted away forming the great lakes etc. This exposed and warmed what we now call north america....

What caused the glaciers to melt? and how was that bad?.....if mankind moved too close to the oceans, its out of his own ignorance, he can move away....but it is still left to be seen if sea level will rise......

Let's pretend for a moment that one possibility exists, A sudden shift in climate, at the end of a a warming cycle. A shift that drops temps to the majority of central America and up to 40 and below F. I am not reciting a movie here, Just showing a plausibility. Our Co2 levels in accordance to current data have never shown such high levels therefor puts us in uncharted waters so to speak.Meaning that in this event and at the rapid warming and melting that we ARE seeing Could cause a complete shutdown of the Atlantic current, of which moderates the temp of the planet. Throwing the world into the beginning stages of a deep freeze. THat is what could be so bad...

[edit on 7-3-2010 by Lil Drummerboy]



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Cam across this video while browsing LiveLeak and decided to spread the word. It contains some great Climate Change evidence that many people have not acknowledged. Check it out! (video still processing)



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance


o really? that's the official version, i know, but there are several issues which aren't spoken about clearly enough.
So show me the unofficial version Lance!


the first is Venus' heat balance, which is dubious to say the least and more importantly, the heat is distributed uniformly, even though a day is longer than 250 earth days there (longer than a Venus year). the sun can't heat the far side, can it, so that would require lot of convection to keep it up and then there'd still be a huge difference in temperatures.
The temperature trapped by venus greenhouse effect traps more significantly then earth dues to its dense carbon dioxide atmosphere. That is basic physics. Anyway there is a link below from ESA that will help with the points you raise.



all well hidden behind that nearly impervious veil and sourced by nasa alone.
Sorry Lance, but this is simply untrue.

Venera 9 (Russian: Венера-9) (manufacturer's designation: 4V-1 No. 660[1]) was a USSR unmanned space mission to Venus. It consisted of an orbiter and a lander. It was launched on June 8, 1975 02:38:00 UTC and weighed 4,936 kg (10,884 lb). The orbiter was the first spacecraft to orbit Venus, while the lander was the first to return images from the surface of another planet.[2]

There were a few other Russian Venera missions and Venera 15 and 16 gave even more detailed atmospheric conditions, but anyway, that NASA veil and sole source of information seems pretty shaky now.
It looks even more dubious when you discover that the ESA sent a probe to Venus in 2005 called the Venus Express.

astronomy2009.esa.int...
Here are the results from the ESA, these can answer some questions that you raise.
astronomy2009.esa.int...


although you'll all consider me out of whack, just remember it when the time finally comes (hopefully).

Why would I consider you out of whack Lance?
Would it be because you don't address any of the issues I raise in the OP, or my first reply to you?
Would it be that you think NASA(and now cold war era space race Russia and recently the ESA) has some how detailed a scam involving Venus so as to perpetrate a myth surrounding global warming? Would that be why someone might feel you are out of whack Lance?

Would you care to comment on previously held beliefs regarding NASA and Venus now that you know it was Russia that first gave us detailed readings of the atmosphere of Venus and we also have some recent studies and results from the ESA?

Considering that your views relating to Venus seem seriously unfounded and steeped in conjecture, speculation and conspiracy(that you can only hope is true), could your views relating to the evidence of climate change in the OP( and the global implication of that change) also be unfounded Lance?

Look at the OP Lance.
Are the glaciers melting faster then we think? Yes or No Lance?
Does the video and photographic evidence show that? Yes or No Lance?
Will these Global Glacial Ice melts impact the globe? Yes or No Lance?
Do you think we should acknowledge the melts, the consequences and act Lance?
Yes or No Lance.

That is all I am asking.
I am not asking for a ridiculous thread derailment with NASA and TPTB conspiracy cover ups of Venus atmospheric conditions that you HOPE is true in order to prove your argument. :down:



oh, good we aren't doomed
well, have a nice day then and direct your energy to something worthwhile

I will always find it worthwhile denying ignorance relating to the obvious climate change evident in my OP that is detailed with video and photographic evidence of increasing and accelerating Ice Melts that will have implications for the globe.

I mean seriously, that seems more worthwhile then sitting around hoping that NASA created a scam relating to the atmospheric conditions of Venus as early as the 1970's in order to perpetrate a false belief that the Earth is under going climate change.

all well hidden behind that nearly impervious veil and sourced by nasa alone. this Venus greenhouse is likely part of the whole sham, just tbh, although you'll all consider me out of whack, just remember it when the time finally comes (hopefully).



Take it easy bro, thanks for the reply.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Russia (soviet era) once operated a couple of probes, today they are defunct and won't be replaced anytime soon. ESA? give me a break they're about as independent in space as they are militarily. Russia is also known for the abiotic oil theory, which they seem to use to good effect, yet, it's considered pseudoscience in the West. why would the even bother today, with data from the 1960s and '70s when noone is going to listen?

the fact remains, greenhouse effects on Venus are at best a theory and i can see how such a meme could be easily invented for use in exactly this type of discussion. i'm not trying to convince anybody because i know i don't have the data required, i only want to introduce the concept, it may prove useful over time (read: necroposting)

the melting of glaciers may have significant effects or it may not, either way, we couldn't prevent it even if we wanted to. the climate won't just 'hold its breath' just because it would help you feel better.

[edit on 2010.3.8 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TV_Nation
 



I like how you state that even if it is not a man made problem then we still need to do something about it?

I am glad you like that. Because we generally observe people acting like that all over the planet. You should like that people react to problems associated with other causes than man.
I would be disturbed by you if you stated that you disliked the fact that we react to problems not created by Man.

What I state is that regardless of what you or I think causes these melts, the melts will impact the globe and we need to acknowledge that and act accordingly.

I will give you a few examples to help you try and comprehend what I am actually saying because it appears that you are having difficulty grasping the simplicity of my OP.

Lets equate the observed climate change detailed in my OP (with video and photographic evidence of climate change) with other natural phenomena.

Bush/Forrest Fires. Bush and Forest Fires effect many countries around the globe.

Nature causes Bush and Forest fires.(this is a good one because there are man made ones and naturally occurring ones) Do we ignore these or their implications?

No we don't. We acknowledge the problem of bush and forest fires even though they are natural events.
We take precautions to reduce their potential to damage or destroy homes and infrastructure or endanger life. We train people and allocate resources to deal with them, we educate people and we design and build house and infrastructure in high risk areas in order to prevent death, damage and destruction. We set early warning systems and monitor high risk location in order to evacuate people at risk.
We study the problem looking for ways to deal with it more efficiently with a view at minimizing the potential to destroy life, property and infrastructure in order to maintain the highest quality and continuity of our social structures.

Earthquakes.
Do we cause them? No.

Do we ignore them or their implications? No we don't.

We acknowledge that earthquakes are a risk even though we don't cause them.

We have standards(at least in the western countries that have earthquake risks) associated with building specifications, we try to build and design earthquake proof buildings and infrastructure. We set aside resources to train people to responds to earthquakes, we train people and allocate resources in order to deal with a natural event that has implication for us. We monitor and set warning systems in place in order to reduce risk and help evacuate people in high risk areas.
We study the problem looking for ways to deal with it more efficiently with a view at minimizing the potential to destroy life, property and infrastructure in order to maintain the highest quality and continuity of our social structures.

Hurricanes and Cyclones or Tornado's.
Nature causes Hurricanes and cyclones or Tornado's. Do we ignore these or their implications?

No we don't. We acknowledge the problem of Hurricanes and cyclones or Tornado's even though they are natural events.
We take precautions to reduce their potential to damage or destroy homes and infrastructure or endanger life. We train people and allocate resources to deal with them, we educate people and we design and build house and infrastructure in high risk areas in order to prevent death, damage and destruction. We set early warning systems and monitor high risk location in order to evacuate people at risk.
We study the problem looking for ways to deal with it more efficiently with a view at minimizing the potential to destroy life, property and infrastructure in order to maintain the highest quality and continuity of our social structures.


How do you go about changing something you have no control of.
Point out where I say we need to change the problem.
Point it out bro!
What we need to do is first acknowledge it. Acknowledge that climate change is real.
LOOK AT MY OP.
Watch the video my friend.
Acknowledge that the Glaciers are melting faster then predicted and acknowledge that these melts will have global implications.



And speaking of strawman arguments your statement about doing something weather it is man made or natural is exactly that...
Explain to me how that is so my friend.

We react to all sorts of natural problems from floods, tsunamis, droughts, famine, fires. As well as the many man made problems.
We react to problems regardless of their cause.
Why would climate change be any different?
Why would climate change be any different whether it is natural of man made?

My time as a nurse has taught me that denial is pathological and a highly ineffective defense mechanism or solution to a problem. A variety of clinical and psychoanalytical research notes that it is often adopted as a defense strategy employed to protect ones sense of self when confronted with overwhelming events and emotions. So the problem can never really be acknowledged, even in late stages when the evidence is overwhelming and obvious(say like a video detailing photographic time lapse footage of global glacier melts that are increasing at rates faster then predicted or calculated).

People also employ distractive techniques(like "its natural we can't do anything about it") to reduce stress but most passive escape mechanisms( like "climate change is a scam" or "NASA is conspiring to create Venus global warming hoax") often turn out to decrease psychological well being.

Thank you for the reply.


[edit on 8/3/10 by atlasastro]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Russia (soviet era) once operated a couple of probes, today they are defunct and won't be replaced anytime soon.
It doesn't matter. It points out the false nature of claims you make as a way of arguing.

Long Lance
all well hidden behind that nearly impervious veil and sourced by nasa alone. this Venus greenhouse is likely part of the whole sham,

So now there are three sources that you need to incorporate into your sham and NASA impervious veil.



ESA? give me a break they're about as independent in space as they are militarily.
Given the false nature of your previous statement regarding NASA, why should I accept your statement regarding the ESA?


the fact remains, greenhouse effects on Venus are at best a theory and i can see how such a meme could be easily invented for use in exactly this type of discussion.
The only meme being invented are those put forward by you Lance.
Specifically this:

all well hidden behind that nearly impervious veil and sourced by nasa alone. this Venus greenhouse is likely part of the whole sham,
.
Can you address the Issues in the OP and answer the questions I have put to you in a previous reply.


i'm not trying to convince anybody because i know i don't have the data required, i only want to introduce the concept, it may prove useful over time (read: necroposting)
You are trying to introduce a lies that have nothing to do with the OP or the questions I have put to you.
You simply lied Lance.

all well hidden behind that nearly impervious veil and sourced by nasa alone. this Venus greenhouse is likely part of the whole sham,
Russia and the ESA also produce data and research supporting Venus greenhouse atmosphere that is driven by CO2. Again here are the links to numerous research and results detailing that climate driven by greenhouse CO2 that induces tremendous temperatures.
astronomy2009.esa.int...



the melting of glaciers may have significant effects or it may not, either way, we couldn't prevent it even if we wanted to. the climate won't just 'hold its breath' just because it would help you feel better.

None of the above has any bearing on my OP.
Again, I will politely direct you to the OP so you can stay on topic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I know we can't stop this Lance. Look at the scale of the melts in the Video evidence and the Photographic time lapse links, and the world glacial monitoring stations that I link.
I know the climate change is not holding its breath Lance.

We are Lance. We are holding our breath. You are Lance. You are holding your breath and waiting.

This will have effects, they will be significant. Just do the math Lance. look at the Glaciers that supply water to nations in Asia, just look at Bolivia and Peru as two examples.
Just take the Volume of Ice in Greenland alone, and put it in the Ocean Lance.
630,000 cubic miles of Ice.
This has the potential to raise the Oceans, just Greenland alone Lance not all the other Glaciers, by 6.5 mtrs.
That is its potential.
Do the math.
Just half melting will raise the sea level by 3mtrs?
Just a 1/4 will raise the sea by over 1mtr?
100 million people live within 1mtr of the mean sea level, Lance.
Illulissat Glacier, which is the largest outlet of the Greenland mass has doubled its out put into the Ocean Lance, in the last 15 years at 125ft a day of a glacial face 4 and a 1/2 mile wide as tall as 400ft.
You have the photographic and Video evidence of that Lance.
There is no debate or conjecture or spin. You can look at it yourself.
We also know that the submerged outlet portions of these Glaciers are melting 100 times faster then thought. www.nasa.gov...
But that is Just Greenland.

Antarctica has the potential to raise the Oceans by 74 metres Lance. Even if just 1/10 melts?

So when you say it may or may not have significant effects, you now have some scale so as to assess risk and the potential for effect.
Are they melting Lance. The answer is Yes.
Will this effect the Earth Lances. The answer is Yes.
Can we stop it Lance. No, look at the video.
Can we act on the changes. Yes.

So.
What is your problem?

What are you waiting for?

This is what you are waiting for:

this Venus greenhouse is likely part of the whole sham, just tbh, although you'll all consider me out of whack, just remember it when the time finally comes (hopefully).


And you are waiting for this


i only want to introduce the concept, it may prove useful over time (read: necroposting)

You are waiting in hope that your belief in Nasa being the only source of Venus climate data and it is a sham, and you hope by introducing it as a hypothetical you can hopefully come back and prove you were right.

While you wait. Watch this again.


Thanks, again, for taking the time to reply Lance. Take it easy bro.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


When the last Ice age ended, there wasn't 6 and 1/2 billion people on the earth. So there wasn't the potential for over a 100 million environmental refugees. There wasn't large populations reliant on glaciers for water. Or large populations living by the sea?

Just a little bit different don't you think?

I think what you fail to consider is that there are positive and negative feedbacks to all events.
You seem to want to focus on what may be positive feedback as a way of ignoring or arguing against the reality of negative ones, or at least hoping they will just disappear if you point at something good that may happen.
I am suggesting that we actually acknowledge the negative feedback that these observed and video and photographed increases in melts will present.
And act accordingly.
This means acknowledging climate change.
Then we can all celebrate with a beer brewed from barley grown in Greenland or moonshine distilled from potatoes grown in Antarctica. Because that would be a positive(but as an event the drinking carries the negative feedback of a hangover).

To recap that.
The melts will have positive effects and negative effects.
I suggest we acknowledge the negative and act accordingly. Is that not logical?
Because lets face it, we don't have to worry about the positive do we? Because by nature they are positive.
And then we can drink beer because we have dealt with the negatives.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Great vid, thread. S&F



TV_Nation

I like how you state that even if it is not a man made problem then we still need to do something about it?

How do you go about changing something you have no control of.

And speaking of strawman arguments your statement about doing something weather it is man made or natural is exactly that...


Erm. ...Hard to know where to start here...

TV_Nation... Fact is, our civilization - our lives, culture, economy, and the safety of our homes - depend on our climate remaining stable. But it's not stable. It's changing.

Fact is, the planet is warming - and past records show that global warming triggers ice ages - this time round, we're maybe looking at a near global freeze up someday soon. Whatever happens in the end - the climate is changing.

Unless we change too - we won't survive - physically or economically.

Unless we do something, now, our civilization will be almost completely destroyed. WE will be destroyed.

But. Our planet is run by a bunch of corporate fascists who think ordinary people like you are expendable.

They're positioning to guarantee their own survival - to conquer - and run what's left of the world when TSHTF. They're making a lot of money doing what they're doing and they don't want to change anything just yet. They want to finish up their current play, profit to the max - and let the bodies pile up wherever and whenever.

"Climategate" is a political platform - not a scientific one. It's just propaganda - designed to trick ordinary people into supporting the Corporate NWO's power plays.

The climate is changing. Even if we can't change our planet's climate, we CAN change our civilization, and the way we live on this world. A good place to start is revamping the world economy. Which means taking our power back, and stripping the Corporate NWO of their power.

How 'bout we stop supporting fascist corporatism and propping up the Corporate NWO? Start supporting democracy?



Check this out:
Extreme Ice Survey

Balog really does amazing work...



tinkered




[edit on 8-3-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Sf18443
 


Thanks for that. Yeah that Mann is a schmuck hey. Someone told me he has flown to Antarctica with his hockey stick and is breaking of bits of Ice with Al Gore to try and speed up the global warming scam hoax tax breakdance incentive environmental NWO take over CRU hack spin blog watts up with that propaganda machine.

Happy now?

What did you think of the OP video?
Did you see Iceland dude, Greenland? Alaska?

You know all that was actually footage.
That wasn't a graph. Just plain images of Ice retreating faster then first thought. Lots of it.

What did you think of the World Glacial Monitoring service?
Did you see how many glaciers they track around the world.
What I found amazing is that they show a retreat in glacial mass also.
I bet we could graph it.
Anyway, thanks for the video.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Thanks mate.


Excellent post.
I linked Balogs site in the OP but thanks for posting it again. You just can't argue with the facts.

You explain many of the issues much more elegantly then I can.
Thanks for adding your thoughts. Much appreciated.




posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/15d3604ed56d.png[/atsimg]

From the Greenland Vostok ice-core temperature data we can quite reasonably infer that we've had at least four ice ages at fairly regular intervals during the past four hundred thousand years or so. The historical record seems to indicate that we're about due for another one now.

From the archeological data available, I think it's a fair bet that there were advanced civilizations on this planet possibly hundreds of thousands of years before our present civilized epoch. Some of them were very possibly more advanced technologically than we are now. The scale and precision of some of the few remaining pieces of their architecture seems to imply that some of them, at least, were more advanced. I seriously doubt that we could even reproduce the pyramids with our present day technology.

None of these earlier civilizations seem to have managed to "prevent" climate change in their time, as it has continued with almost clock-like precision and regularity for as far back as we can see. The numerous city remains now lying at the bottom of the oceans are testament to their powerlessness in the face of massive changes to the environment. Our civilization too, will ultimately yield to the relentless cycles of the Universe.

Without climate change there would be no life on Earth. It is the engine which drives evolution, and indeed life itself. Why do we want to stop it? Are we so thoroughly afraid of death that we have to engage in some insane, futile attempts to prevent the inevitable?

We could definitely clean up our act in terms of the way that we treat ourselves, one another and this planet before we reach the "clearing at the end of the path". Maybe we're not really afraid of death so much as we are of facing our self-evaluation when that time comes, so we try to delay the inevitable by pouring ridiculous amounts of energy into to trying to delay it.

Maybe we should install giant nuclear powered deep-freezers on the glaciers! Maybe that will "save" us from ourselves, or from the cycles of Nature, which are really the same thing.


[edit on 8-3-2010 by treesdancing]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a566b4d4cccd.jpg[/atsimg]

The above graph shows the Antarctic sea ice extent as measured using satellite data from 1978 thru 2004. Sea ice does not affect sea level if it melts, but the size of the largest ice mass on the planet is an indicator of average temperature in the Southern hemisphere. The above graph was DROPPED from the draft IPCC AR4 report (probably because it shows a distinct POSITIVE trend in sea ice extent!

The IPCC later replaced it with this 2nd order graph, averaged by year instead of month, which shows an even more dramatic increase in sea ice extent over recent years. Go figure.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/76700e97a222.jpg[/atsimg]

Despite the Gore-esque propaganda which is suppurating from the mainstream media, the Antarctic ice appears to be growing by an average of about 9000 square km (0.7%) per year.

These graphs were drawn from this article - a more involved exploration of this topic.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join