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.


Extreme Weather? Nothing to see here...move along...

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by Tephra

Hello Tephra,

So just to recap, extreme weather? Not really, just part of the natural way of the Earth.

Nothing to see here...move along...

I agree that it could be part of Nature's way or a cycle...but we don't know. Not enough data on long periods to make it a certainty, and not enough data makes it a double edged sword...

Thanks for dropping by.

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:48 PM
Coming Soon

Take Shelter 2011
edit on 25-6-2011 by LLTKing because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by Screwed

Hello again Screwed and thanks for the added details !!

How someone can look at clear scientific data pointing to a very real albeit terrifying scenario and still come away with the same point of view is beyond me.

Well, that makes two of us !! But diversity is what makes the world go round. It would be terribly boring if we all agreed. Adding discussion and details to topics is always a plus !

Your reply here is an excellent example !

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf

Thank you Sir/Ma'am ?? I appreciate the kind words ! !!

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:03 PM

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by SonoftheSun

Just another thing to show how devastating HAARP can be.

For me, HAARP is like having a brown dwarf lurking...lots of speculation yet I'd have to see conclusive evidence before jumping into that boat...

But like any other good conspiracy, I don't throw it out with the baby's water...

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by SonoftheSun


Stars & Flags!

You are our kind of writer/researcher and we will seek to add to this well-written piece.

Thank you for all the time, research and formatting it took for this presentation.

Well done!

In Peace, Love & Light


posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by Section31

A great pleasure to hear from you again Section31 !!!!

Volcano eruptions and earthquakes are not caused by global warming. All those events are caused by something heating up or moving underneath the surface. Earth is getting ready to go through some dramatic geological changes, which will pave the way for an entirely new ecosystem.

I enjoyed your awesome pics of the canyon and the time machine clip. But this claim here is...hmmm...frightening to say the least. And I'm almost sure you have links or a specific source for this...

I would be highly interested in finding more about this theory.

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:16 PM
Dear Sir or Madam,

You are hereby charged with noticing things that most of the world does not. As a precautionary procedure, you will immediately forgo any and all future posts for a time as yet undetermined. As well, please supply all of your social site information, including passwords, to your local authorities. . .which will be arriving at your location 30 seconds after you read this.

Thank you for your timely cooperation.

Your Friends, The Illumin. . .I mean. . .Monsanto.

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by thorfourwinds

Hello Thorfourwinds,

Very nice words !!

I appreciate ! Thank you.

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Divine Strake
Dear Sir or Madam,

You are hereby charged with noticing things that most of the world does not. As a precautionary procedure, you will immediately forgo any and all future posts for a time as yet undetermined. As well, please supply all of your social site information, including passwords, to your local authorities. . .which will be arriving at your location 30 seconds after you read this.

Thank you for your timely cooperation.

Your Friends, The Illumin. . .I mean. . .Monsanto.

I am a Sir. Very much so.

Thank you for a great and funny reply !!

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:14 AM
reply to post by juleol

Agreed my friend they label CO2 as something bad but it is not and has been at much higher levels throughout Earths history when Life was thriving on Earth

Life was thriving on Earth when CO2 was in the thousands of PPM and currently the CO2 level is only 300-350 PPM

AGW is one big Hoax and many people have become aware of this recently i am glad.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by liejunkie01

Well, seeing that some people don't do their research and I full on know the rules, and that I did that on purpose to get people to think how devastating is HAARP and what is it and what is it's purpose.

For those that are unlearned, HAARP stands for High-frequency Alaskan Aural Research Program. This is no more than a cover, a cover of what it is really designed for, weather control. Why you may ask? Simple, find other ways to depopulate the Earth to about 10 million people. All of these "Natural" disasters are nothing more than made or triggered events. HAARP can create Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Hail storms, and other devastating weather anomalies.

But it cannot create Earthquakes or Volcanoes, it only triggers them. Heard of the volcano that is in Greece is starting to wake up. It's being triggered.

What else can HAARP do? Well, it can do this.

Now that much electricity given off can do some damage, if pointed in the right direction.

That one liner was only to be seen as a way to get people to think, so please, don't come crashing down on me for trying to get people to question.
edit on 26-6-2011 by FreedomCommander because: incorrect syntax

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by SonoftheSun

Mother Earth goes through a cleansing period, every so's really not hard to believe, and who knows maybe Sol places a rule in it aswell? Either way it has nothing to do with a gaint dwarf star or some killer comet...

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:29 AM
reply to post by FreedomCommander

Hello FreedomCommander,

Thank you for coming back and for expanding on your one liner.

HAARP can create Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Hail storms, and other devastating weather anomalies.

Although it is a strong belief in the conspiracy community, to a ridiculous point sometimes, I have a hard time buying this theory. But it's another subject altogether.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I respect yours.

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 09:09 PM
Related to the topic: Whale's odyssey sheds light on climate change, scientists say
Sub-Header: The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed'

When a 43-foot gray whale was spotted off the Israeli town of Herzliya last year, scientists came to a startling conclusion: it must have wandered across the normally icebound route above Canada, where warm weather had briefly opened a clear channel three years earlier.

On a microscopic level, scientists also have found plankton in the North Atlantic where it had not existed for at least 800,000 years.

The whale's odyssey and the surprising appearance of the plankton indicates a migration of species through the Northwest Passage, a worrying sign of how global warming is affecting animals and plants in the oceans as well as on land.

"The implications are enormous. It's a threshold that has been crossed," said Philip C. Reid, of the Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science in Plymouth, England.

"It's an indication of the speed of change that is taking place in our world in the present day because of climate change," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

As I said in my previous posting, this is something in which mankind cannot control. If you read the sub-header of the article, listed above, I have been proven 100% correct. Its out of our control.

Mankind is not responsible for global warming folks. Even though we have contributed on some level, the reality is that Earth is going through a natural geological change. 'The Little Ice Age', 'Medieval Warming Period', 'The Dark Ages', and 'The Great Flood' are prime examples. Since mankind has only been around for a very short time, compared to Earth's overall history, modern society has not witnessed continental drifts, intense mountain creation, and massive island formation.

Approximately six months ago, I bumped into this article: New Ocean Forming In Africa. Humanity does not have the capability to change the environment is such a manner, which would result in the formation of oceans and continents.

My prediction: Our current global warming trend is caused by something shifting and heating up below the Earth's surface. Not on top. Thus, we are seeing volcano and earthquake activity. Once the Earth hits its peak temperatures (the height of global warming), the entire geological landscape will erupt in violent changes. After all the changes have settled down, Earth will drop the temperature and enter into an ice age.

A whole new ecological and geological landscape is on its way.

Within a new ecological environment, new species will emerge from the transformation. Guess what? Some of those new species may have already started to show up:
Nine Fish With "Hands" Found to Be New Species
More than 1000 new species found in New Guinea
Seven New Species Found in Philippines
(Above is a very small list of a BIGGER upswing in new species.)

Sorry folks. Our time may be numbered. I am hoping that humanity will psychologically evolve to the new conditions; thus, our species will still be able to exist on this planet.

edit on 6/26/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by Section31

Incoming U2U.

Thank you for that fascinating reply !

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 11:49 AM
In some ways accounting hasn't changed much since Pacioli wrote the first "textbook" in 1494.

APB (USA) Opinion 9 (1966) stated that extraordinary items were events that differed significantly enough from an entity’s customary business activities as to make those events unlikely to often reoccur;

In Opinion 30 (1973), The guidance stated that, for an event or transaction to be classified as extraordinary, it had to be both unusual in nature (abnormal) and infrequent in occurrence (not reasonably expected to recur in the foreseeable future); both criteria needed to be judged based on the environment in which the organization operated.

By the turn of the century (2000) hurricanes could no longer be classified as extra ordinary, (ie not abnormal and likely to recur) not even Katrina. I remeber back in 2000 when we heard that accounting treatment for hurricanes which had been in place since 1917 was to change.

To view any event in an uncertain world as “unusual in nature” and “infrequent in occurrence” is to disregard the potential for anomalies. In looking at the changes that have taken place in the world since extraordinary items were first mentioned for accounting purposes in 1917, the only rational conclusion that can be drawn is that nothing is extraordinary anymore.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 12:54 PM
What the Bible says about the last days:

Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?
And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
edit on 29-6-2011 by STEADFast because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:33 PM
Greetings SonoftheSun, a most excellent thread you have here. I am reminded of arguing this point with friends long ago and not having the time to go to the library (I remember a time before the Internet) and show all of them what I had read and and assimilated into my awareness.

Today this is as easy as assuming the apparent rise in this type of activity was due mostly to the increased ability we hve of recording and reporting said activity.

I am also reminded of an article I read recently, here are some excerpts:

Why are governments allowed to get away with the idea that CO2 is a pollutant, when every market gardener knows the opposite? Why do we all allow this misguided talk about emissions? Why do we allow politicians and Green activists to traipse off to Copenhagen and now Cancun on a jolly, in order to make ridiculous and dangerous agreements regarding these same emissions?

Money, follow it.

So Timbuktu may be having a hot spell – will that cancel out the blizzards in Scotland? Will some statistician at the CRU or GISS work out by means of some obscure average that the Globe is one tenth warmer this year than some other year in the last one hundred? Who cares? I’ll tell you who cares – those who are freezing to death, those who are having to pay through the nose for windmills of shame that do not work! Those are they that care, while corrupt politicians count the filthy lucre they have gained on investments in so called carbon free industries.

Yes, the climate is constantly shifting, changing and evolving. It is a dynamic system and if it were static, the life would indeed be impossible in it's present form.

So we are to be persuaded to buy electric cars, which are equally useless. Who wants a car that has to be charged up overnight after a measly 70 miles? And then there is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Somewhere out of sight, and out of mind, that electricity has to be generated. What price then if one had to wait till the wind did blow!

Not to mention the heavy metals used in the production of the batteries or what to do with them when they wear out.

PS. Herewith some science for the layman, which needs only simple mathematics. Both sides agree that the current level of atmospheric CO2 is less than 400 parts per million by volume. That is 0.04 of the atmosphere. So the total amount from all sources, from respiration, from the oceans, from vents and volcanoes, and from the combustion of fossil fuel is only 0.04 of the atmosphere. How much of that is the anthropogenic element? Less than 4%. So 4% of 0.04 = 0.0016%. Now suppose the powers that be manage to persuade every sovereign power to cut their emissions of CO2 by 20% by 2020, what effect will that have? Let us do the sum. 20% of 0.0016 = 0.00032. Can you imagine just how ridiculous that is!

That is an extremely small percentage of atmospheric content to have as large of an effect as we are expected to believe.

If the whole of the Globe was 15° centigrade, night and day, season in and season out, then one might be able to record a warming. But it is not like that, is it? Even the temperature of two airports as close as Heathrow and Gatwick show differences, and differences night and day.


Another article elsewhere on the same site contains these tidbits:

Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have been occurring for about a century. But only about 3% of the CO2 has human origins. A likely source of the increase is heating of oceans, which causes CO2 to be released.

Fits with what else has been posted here, let's look further:

The most likely cause of oceans being heated is hot spots cycling in the earth’s core. A very significant point of evidence is that recent ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental causes would not be so consistent. But convection in the earth’s core could produce very precise repetitious cycles.

More corroboration on what has been said in regards to heat and it's possible source.

A lot of heat from the earth’s core gets to the surface, as indicated by deep wells which produce warm water. Oceans are deeper than deep water wells. So the oceans are picking up a lot of heat from the earth’s core. Any increase, and an ice age would surely be the result.

The oceans have a massive amount of thermal mass to them, it would take an incredible amount of energy to heat them from without.


I will close for now, but will be watching this thread with interest.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:11 PM
Ok, you got me thinking and after a few minutes of looking around I have found some very interesting results.

Warming waters in the deepest parts of the ocean surrounding Antarctica have contributed to sea-level rise over the past two decades, scientists report today (Sept. 20).

In an attempt to pinpoint all culprits for the rising oceans, scientists analzyed warming trends in the abyssal ocean — below about 3,300 feet (1,000 meters), said study team member and oceanographer Sarah Purkey of the University of Washington in Seattle.

The scientists found that the strongest deep warming occurred in the water around Antarctica, and the warming lessens as it spreads around the globe. The temperature increases are small — about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit (0.03 degrees Celsius) per decade in the deep Southern Ocean, and less elsewhere. But the large volume of the ocean over which they are found and the high capacity of water to absorb heat means that this warming accounts for a huge amount of energy storage.

Well what do you know? I wonder where all of that energy is coming from and what does that mean in terms we can grasp?

This amount of energy would be the equivalent of giving every person on Earth five 1,400-Watt hair dryers, and running them constantly during the 20-year study period, said study team member and oceanographer Gregory Johnson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Wow, I think that might have a noticeable effect, don't you?

Sea level has been rising at around one-eighth of an inch (3 millimeters) per year on average since 1993, with about half of that caused by the ocean expanding as it's heated, and the other half due to additional water added to the ocean, mostly from melting continental ice.

The oceanographers note that deep warming of the Southern Ocean accounts for about one-twentieth of an inch (1.2 mm) per year of the sea-level rise around Antarctica in the past two decades.

So we have empirical evidence that there is heating going on in the deep oceans, and a substantial amount of it indeed. That heating is causing almost fully half of the rise in global sea levels, but I do not hear that being reported at all, I had to go looking for this.

The authors note that there are several possible causes for this deep warming: a shift in Southern Ocean winds; a change in the density of what is called Antarctic Bottom Water (which would change how much gets mixed with surface waters); or how quickly that bottom water is formed near the Antarctic, where it sinks to fill the deepest, coldest portions of the ocean around much of the globe.

Doesn't sound like they are considering geological processes, though.

source for above quotes

Here is a fellow who questions the standard anthropocentric climate change model, although he too does not draw any correlations to geologic processes in the article the following excerpts are from.

NASA’s James Hansen is probably right about this point: the importance of ocean heat storage to a better understanding of how sensitive the climate system is to our greenhouse gas emissions. The more efficient the oceans are at storing excess heat during warming, the slower will be the surface temperature response of the climate system to an imposed energy imbalance.

Unfortunately, the uncertainties over the rate at which vertical mixing takes place in the ocean allows climate modelers to dismiss a lack of recent warming by simply asserting that the deep oceans must somehow be absorbing the extra heat. Think Trenberth’s “missing heat“. (For a discussion of the complex processes involved in ocean mixing see here.)

Well, maybe what is really missing is the IPCC’s willingness to admit the climate system is simply not as sensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions as they claim it is. Maybe the missing heat is missing because it does not really exist.


It my be worthwhile to look into the innards of that vulture.


I WILL say I firmly believe that the surface temperature is THE MOST important temperature in the climate system. This is because (1) the surface is where most sunlight is absorbed, (2) the atmosphere is then convectively coupled to the surface, and (3) the surface and atmosphere together are the ONLY way for the Earth to radiatively cool to space in the face of continuous solar heating.

But, as we will see, the detailed profile of recent warming with depth in the ocean does appear to have additional information about climate sensitivity that is not apparent from surface warming alone.

Why is it that scientists always seem surprised when they learn that they don't know how systems work or have as yet have everything figured out?

He goes on to detail his analysis in comparison to theirs and evaluates the simulation they are using. What he finds is this:

The bottom line is that 40 years of warming of the 0-700 meter ocean layer has been so modest that, even if we assume it was caused by the GISS forcings (which Hansen believes will eventually cause strong warming) , it corresponds to low climate sensitivity anyway.

In other words, the oceans have not warmed enough to support the IPCC’s predictions of future warming.

So we have the IPCC who

The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore

and has not produced the evidence that has been expected.

(above quote from the Wiki linked earlier)

Even though the model I use is admittedly simple, this does not really matter because, in the global average, long-term temperature change is only a function of 3 basic processes:

(1) the strength of the forcing (imposed energy imbalance on the climate system, due to whatever);

(2) the strength of the climate system’s resistance to that forcing (net feedback, which determines climate sensitivity); and,

(3) the rate of ocean mixing (which affects surface temperature, which affects the rate of energy loss to space through feedback processes).

That's probably the most concise explanation of the phenomena I've ever read.

He then goes into pretty specific detail as to how they cooked the numbers to give them the appearance of accuracy in their models.

He concludes with the following:

It appears that the vertical profile of ocean warming could be a key ingredient in getting a better idea of how sensitive the climate system is to our greenhouse gas emissions. The results here suggests the warming has been considerably weaker than what would be expected for a sensitive climate system.

The sensitivity number I estimate — 1.3 deg. C — arguably puts future warming in the realm of “eh, who cares?”

It will be interesting to see how the next IPCC report, now in the early stages of preparation, explains away the increasing discrepancies between their climate models and the observations. Since IPCC outcomes are ultimately driven by desired governmental policies and politicians, rather than science, I’m sure the wordsmithing (and figuresmithing) will be artfully done.

source for all quotes except Wiki

And then we have Scripps Oceanographic Institute with this from 2006

Global Warming Can Trigger Extreme Ocean, Climate Changes, Scripps-led Study Reveals Scientists use deep ocean historical records to find an abrupt ocean circulation reversal caused by greenhouse gas warming

They reveal quite a bit in this report, among other things we find:

"The earth is a system that can change very rapidly. Fifty-five million years ago, when the earth was in a period of global warmth, ocean currents rapidly changed direction and this change did not reverse to original conditions for about 20,000 years," said Nunes. "What this tells us is that the changes that we make to the earth today (such as anthropogenically induced global warming) could lead to dramatic changes to our planet."

Because, you know, there were so many humans around fifty-five million years ago with their Humvees and other polluting machinery.

The global warming of 55 million years ago, known as the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), emerged in less than 5,000 years, an instantaneous blip on geological time scales (the researchers indicate that 5,000 years can be considered an upper limit and they believe the warming could have unfolded much more quickly than geological records can show them).

There's the ancient human activity again...

"Overturning is very sensitive to surface ocean temperatures and surface ocean salinity," said Norris, a professor in the Geosciences Research Division at Scripps. "The case described in this paper may be one of our best examples of global warming triggered by the massive release of greenhouse gases and therefore it gives us a perspective on what the long-term impact is likely to be of today's greenhouse warming that humans are causing."

The gentleman I linked to in the previous section of this post talks about this very issue and the post is much more recent, overturning the entire basis for the Scripps argument.

Finally the report closes with this:

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Science Support Program. IODP is sponsored by NSF and Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The JOI Alliance (JOI, Texas A & M University Research Foundation and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University) manages scientific drilling operations conducted aboard the U.S.-sponsored drilling vessel, on behalf of IODP.

emphasis mine

Anyone who has followed the Japanese nuclear emergency thread will be very familiar with that particular ministry.

What's the history of NISA?

The agency was established in 2001 as part of administrative reforms under the late Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, who wanted to drastically restructure the government's various ministries and agencies.

NISA was formed by basically combining part of the nuclear regulatory section of the Natural Resources and Energy Agency, which also answers to METI, and part of the now-defunct Science and Technology Agency, which was folded into the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry.


I don't know about the other agencies behind Scripps' research, but knowing they are even remotely affiliated with that group instantly looses much of their credibility with me.

Apologies for this monster post, but I dove down this rabbit hole and came up with this bits I thought might be of relevance to the conversation.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in