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.

 

Prince charles warns of 6th extinction event.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
the heir to the throne has issued a warning to the world about the melting icecaps and predicted a world without ice in the arctic within a few years...
he also warned of our extinction very soon if we dont stop polluting the worlds atmosphere.
even though i dont particulary like the guy he does raise a valid point.
source below :
url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3804419/Prince-Charless-fears-for-future-brof-mankind.html
edit on 9-9-2011 by kayak because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Fixed Link


It's one of those things like watching a person that has mental issues slowly degrade... Everyone defends them and says "they're sane" but eventually you catch them on the roof in skidmarked underwear trying to sell grapes to a unicorn.

The Earth will slowly be destroyed, and we will all say it isn't happening. Human nature.


edit on 9-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Prince Charles is a lunatic.
He has made such claims before I believe.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kayak
 


If there is one man crazier than Al Gore it's Prince Charles. When will these people realize that their man made global warming lies have been exposed and they have no credibility anymore???



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kayak
 


i root ed
prince charles and his 2 wives in their face



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Isn't he the one who would like to return to earth as a virus?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Prince Charles is a known crazy man, why are we still listening to him ?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Go to 4:45




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
what's he on?

he has all the luxuries in the world but not his sanity

aside from that, it does scream guilt. his statements of concern the part about him preaching about the responsibility for people to cut down on Petrol use and he has like what seems to be 100s of cars and millions of cubic tons of air to heat each cold season in his castle

ps there was another topic about it but it seems not in the right section anyway.
edit on 9-9-2011 by ignant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
He is right and wrong. Global warming is a misunderstanding and incorrect, as the correct terminology would be climate change. Also, anthropomorphic climate change values are negligible compared to geological or celestial causation.

He is correct that we are polluting our planet and it risks the integrity of the ecosystems.

I will provide some information that will help people understand the type of crisis that may be forming.

These are far more realistic potentials than the "global warming" misunderstanding.

Anoxic Event - wiki


Oceanic anoxic events or anoxic events occur when the Earth's oceans become completely depleted of oxygen (O2) below the surface levels. Although anoxic events have not happened for millions of years, the geological record shows that they happened many times in the past.



Oceanic anoxic events have been recognized primarily from the already warm Cretaceous and Jurassic Periods, when numerous examples have been documented,[6][7] but earlier examples have been suggested to have occurred in the late Triassic, Permian, Devonian (Kellwasser event/s), Ordovician and Cambrian.



Typically, oceanic anoxic events last for under half a million years, before a full recovery.


There are multiple conflicting theories of how an anoxic event can be created.

Dead Zone - wiki


Dead zones are hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in the world's oceans, the observed incidences of which have been increasing since oceanographers began noting them in the 1970s.



In March 2004, when the recently established UN Environment Programme published its first Global Environment Outlook Year Book (GEO Year Book 2003) it reported 146 dead zones in the world's oceans where marine life could not be supported due to depleted oxygen levels.



A 2008 study counted 405 dead zones worldwide.[2][3]


So within 4 years the number of 'dead zones' in the oceans tripled (or our discoveries of them tripled).

With the information available at our fingertips, it is clearly evident that it is very possible for a potential anoxic event to occur. This would be considered a mass extinction. It has happened tons of times before historically without any humans to cause or affect it.

Also very important to discuss is the issue of Eutrophication.

Anthropomorphic Eutrophication is caused by things like fertilizer or sewage run-off.


Eutrophication (Greek: eutrophia—healthy, adequate nutrition, development; German: Eutrophie) is the movement of a body of water′s trophic status in the direction of increasing plant biomass, by the addition of artificial or natural substances, such as nitrates and phosphates, through fertilizers or sewage, to an aquatic system.[1] In other terms, it is the "bloom" or great increase of phytoplankton in a water body. Negative environmental effects include hypoxia, the depletion of oxygen in the water, which induces reductions in specific fish and other animal populations. Other species (such as Nemopilema nomurai jellyfish in Japanese waters) may experience an increase in population that negatively affects other species.


Essentially certain plants or animals will feed on the massive sewage/fertilizer deposits and will grow out of control into overpopulation. This can cause food chain collapse or also it can cause depletion of the oxygen content of the water (hypoxia).

Hypoxia

Hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, is a phenomenon that occurs in aquatic environments as dissolved oxygen (DO; molecular oxygen dissolved in the water) becomes reduced in concentration to a point where it becomes detrimental to aquatic organisms living in the system.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
What on earth are you guys defending??? I would defend anyone "crazy" enough to speak out against the furvor of insanity which is KILLLING our planet and all life on it.

It is sad that he says this but it still falls on deaf ears.

I personally would love to hear more about what he knows and is willing to share.

Edit to add that I was thinking about starting a thread just a day ago about life without humanity and its implications on the eco system if man were to no longer be the stewarts of the planet, from the reactions in this thread the responses I expected would most likely been less than agreeable to my ideas, thoughts and emotions on the subject.

edit on 9-9-2011 by antar because: See above



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
What on earth are you guys defending??? I would defend anyone "crazy" enough to speak out against the furvor of insanity which is KILLLING our planet and all life on it.

It is sad that he says this but it still falls on deaf ears.

I personally would love to hear more about what he knows and is willing to share.


I bet he knows a lot more 'inside' facts than we do.

I would love to sit down and have a conversation with Charles or any other top ranking people. I would be respectful and cordial but also at the same time, I would press the questions and try to get some information out of him.

I wonder what his response is towards the allegations that his families' investment portfolio is packed full of the world's top polluting industries ? How does he, an influential important individual in today's world, deal with this ? What plans does he have to change things around, what method of transition does he propose?

I have many many questions, sadly I do not have the opportunity to meet with these individuals and ask them about it.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Oh boy where to start huh?

This has been a large part of my meditations this week, trying to understand how sensitivity to the plight of the world and the abominations of all life forms can make me unofficially angry in my non meditative moments.

It keeps you menatl really so to say he is off his rocker would be true but in the same sense to be off the rocker from those rocking it is not a bad idea.

I dont know how he does it, but these little displays are nothing more than throwing roses at a man being stoned to death. It may not be the real cause of death but is even worse because it is a compromise of what one knows to be the truth.

There is a great story about just that, a man by the name of Monsoor. Basically his Master was being stoned to death by hordes of ignorant people in the village and rather than throw stones, he compromised and threw a rose for fear that if he did nothing, he too would end being tortured.

In the end he was far more tortured because the others were ignorant but he knew the truth and could never forgive himself and went mad with grief and sorrow.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar


There is a great story about just that, a man by the name of Monsoor. Basically his Master was being stoned to death by hordes of ignorant people in the village and rather than throw stones, he compromised and threw a rose for fear that if he did nothing, he too would end being tortured.

In the end he was far more tortured because the others were ignorant but he knew the truth and could never forgive himself and went mad with grief and sorrow.


That is a really interesting parable. Thanks for sharing it.

I suppose the moral of the story is that we need to take action to do the right thing, even if it seems like a bad decision at the time, because it will eat away at us for the rest of our short miserable lives?

That's what I take from the story, at least.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Back to the topic of Extinction Level Events, there is some interesting information available about findings within the geological records that can give us hints or clues as to what caused the die offs in the first place.

Cretaceous OAE 2 caused by massive magmatic episode

It's a really interesting piece, and it provides insights into what may be playing a role in the natural course of life and death here at Earth. Magmatic and Volcanic causation ranks high on this list of possibilities.


OAE2, occurring at the Cenomanian/Turonian boundary (about 93.5 Myr ago)3, is the most widespread and best defined OAE of the mid-Cretaceous.



Although the enhanced burial of organic matter can be explained either through increased primary productivity or enhanced preservation scenarios1, 2, the actual trigger mechanism, corresponding closely to the onset of these episodes of increased carbon sequestration, has not been clearly identified. It has been postulated that large-scale magmatic activity initially triggered OAE2 (refs 4, 5), but a direct proxy of magmatism preserved in the sedimentary record coinciding closely with the onset of OAE2 has not yet been found.


I'll try to break this up a bit so it will be easier on the eyes.
They took samples and are reporting their findings.


Here we report seawater osmium isotope ratios in organic-rich sediments from two distant sites. We find that at both study sites the marine osmium isotope record changes abruptly just at or before the onset of OAE2. Using a simple two-component mixing equation, we calculate that over 97 per cent of the total osmium content in contemporaneous seawater at both sites is magmatic in origin, a ~30–50-fold increase relative to pre-OAE conditions.


Basically we have evidence that a magmatic event occurred simultaneously along with the OAE2, but we have not located the origins or source of the magmatic event. Hopefully I explained that correctly. We can find the residue left over, but we cannot determine it's origins or direct causation.


Furthermore, the magmatic osmium isotope signal appears slightly before the OAE2—as indicated by carbon isotope ratios—suggesting a time-lag of up to ~23 kyr between magmatism and the onset of significant organic carbon burial, which may reflect the reaction time of the global ocean system. Our marine osmium isotope data are indicative of a widespread magmatic pulse at the onset of OAE2, which may have triggered the subsequent deposition of large amounts of organic matter.


So basically the isotope ratios observed suggest *in the scientist's opinion* that it could take as long as 20,000 years for a magmatic event to actually cause an extinction event. This may seem extremely confusing and counter-intuitive, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible or it didn't happen.

This may actually make sense because we have to remember that the hydrosphere and atmosphere are separated slightly, and each ecosystem is both self-contained while at the same time, part of the greater biosphere.

So for it to take up to 20,000 years for massive magmatic events to actually cause mass extinctions within the hydrosphere (oceanic realms), may actually be logical and consistent.

Things that affect the atmospheric level may not affect the hydrospheric level at the same rates. Even though the top level may be obliterated, the sea world and sea life could go on for many years without even showing much effect. This is probably possible. I do not know how well this would work in reverse though, because I assume that if the sea-life is eliminated that most of us land-dwellers will starve as many organisms up here eat food from down there.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



Yes and to not compromise what you know to be the truth at any cost. I am with you in that he is ripe for an interview from an alternative news reporter.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


This all corresponded to the death of our oceans as well at the time right? Seems I have read a bit on that and cant help thinking about our current situation.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GalaxyCollision
Isn't he the one who would like to return to earth as a virus?
No, that would be his charming father, if I'm not mistaken.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join