Leading scientists state, that earth`s core and earth-near space are changing, with consequences for

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboriginee
Hello everyone!

For more than 1 year I`ve been searching for confirmation given by scientists about the fact, that some big change is going on within our earth´s core and at least in our nearer part of our solar system, wow, I finally found it!

Here`s the link:
www.2011.geocataclysm.org...

And here are some citations out of the scientists` text:


1. Participants of the World Forum – International Congress GEOCATACLYSM-2011 state that the continuing trend of global change in the geological and geophysical parameters of the Earth and near-earth space, acceleration of the growth rate of the number and energy of natural disasters, global changes observed throughout the Earth including its core, mantle, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere represent a serious threat to the sustainable development of humanity.



5. The geological life of our planet have repeatedly witnessed periods of a significant increase in endogenous and exogenous activity and another such period, as shown by many natural indicators, has already begun.



Okay, wait a moment, did they really say, that there are changes going on in our earth`s core, our ionosphere and magnetosphere and so on threatening humanity?

And did they state, that there were periods of, eh, something like decreasing of natural population caused by those changes, and that we have come into such a period?

Yes, and by the way, that would mean, that the reasons for those changes mainly aren`t man-made!

I nearly can`t believe that there are scientists who tell us the truth.

Thanks to those brave scientists! NASA looks very pale besides them!!!!!

Here`s a list of the leading scientists of that Association:



Members of Presidium of the World Forum:

Honorary Chairman of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Franz Halberg, Honorary Director of the Halberg Chronobiology Center, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, US)

Honorary Co-Chairman of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Nikolay Laverov, Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, President of the National Center for Development of Innovative Technologies (Moscow, Russia)

Honorary Co-Chairman of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Walter Kofler, President of the International Academy of Science Health and Ecology (Innsbruck, Austria)

Chairman of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Elchin Khalilov, Chairman of the International Committee on Global Geological and Environmental Change (Munich, Germany), Director General of the Scientific Research Institute for Prognosis and Studying of Earthquakes (Baku, Azerbaijan)

Co-Chairman of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, President of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, Coordinator General of the Committee on Science and Technology of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (Islamabad, Pakistan)

Co-Chairman of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Ahmet Bulut, Vice-Rector of the “Ondokuz Mayıs” University (Samsun, Turkey)

Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Vitaly Starostenko, Director of the Institute of Geophysics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kiev, Ukraine)

Co-Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the World Forum:

Prof. Dr. Cengiz Toklu, Head of Civil Engineering Department of Yeditepe University (Istanbul, Turkey)

Co-Chairman of the “Health Care” Section of the World Forum:

Yoshihiko Watanabe MD, Ph.D., Assistant professor, Head of Department of Tokyo Women’s Medical University (Tokyo, Japan)

Co-Chairman of the Section “Cosmic-terrestrial relations, chronobiology, BIOCOS program”:

Prof. Dr. Abdullah Alabdulgader, General Director of the Prince Sultan Cardiac Center (Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia)


I wonder what they mean, when they mention the earth-near space as one of the causing factors. Perhaps we can discuss about that, maybe we can carry together some assumptions.
Cause, I mean, when there are going on some changes in the earth-near space, and if they are one of the reasons for the earth changes, maybe they are the main reason.



Do you remember NASA coming out and stating that the Sun now has 4 Polarities instead of 2?

Obviously our Sun is expanding, just like Stars do.

Simple logical deduction would tell you from this information, that all that these "scientist" have stated would take place if the Sun now has 4 Polarities, and is growing.

Everything on Earth would be affected by such an event, as it apparently is.




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Why does it become a shock to some that the world is, and always will be a dangerous place to live?

As with all random events, there will be clusters of catastrophe and clusters of relative peace and tranquility.

History, as brief as is recorded, shows this without question. As such, we could all make it a bit easier on ourselves by doing what we CAN do to make life more enjoyable.

We could stop fighting each other.
edit on 30-9-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
We're riding with the earth, not the other way around. We're subject to natural and cosmic whims, ready or not.

What does this thread's headline say in its entirety? It would be nice to have some overall context for what I'm reading.
edit on 30-9-2012 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Larry L
 



Originally posted by Larry L
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


I notice how the little picture of yours completely leaves out carbon taxes, and carbon credit trading between companies, and how rich Al Gore has gotten since his rediculous sham of a video released. You act like "big oil" is just big oil. It's not, it should be called "big energy". These guys know which way the wind is blowing, no pun intended. They have seen for a couple decades now how common people are sick of pollution and destroying the environment in the name of making a buck, and that includes burning oil. So yes.....they are also behind Al Gore and the "carbon laws" because in another 20-50 years time or so, when oil's nearly phased out, your money is still going to be going in the pockets of the same people. They're just going to be providing you with a diferent source for the energy you're using.


I’m as sceptical of carbon taxes and credits as anyone. Why? Because they’re just an excuse to continue on the same destructive path we’re on and not make any real changes. Note that these have been implemented by politicians, not scientists

The ‘different’ sources of energy you allude to will either be personal solar panels so that not only are people generating their own electricity, but they’re making a little money as well by feeding the excess back into the grid. Other forms such as wind/tidal power will be far less expwnsive as there will only be an initial set up fee and minor maintenance costs as opposed to the continueing cost we currently see with oil gas and coal to extract it from the ground


How anyone is still buying into this man-made global warming scam is beyond me. It's been proven to be absolute bunk. 10 years ago, most of the scientists in the field supported it, but since then THOUSANDS of those scientists have come forward saying it's non-sense and either left the IPCC, or were removed from the IPCC by it's heads for speaking out against the data they're presenting the people.


Proved bunk eh. By Who? You?

Here is a snippet from a previous post of mine on the issue. Note that none of the sources are the IPCC
 


Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.




Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
tigger.uic.edu...




This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
www.pnas.org...




The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues.





As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated
visionprize.com...



 



Just go watch the aptly named documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (though I already know man-made global warming groupies won't watch it just based on the name....good brainwashing doesn't allow it). It gets into all the scientists that left or were booted out of the IPCC and how all of them have just been viciously attacked by the corrupt, endentured scientists still with the IPCC.
It just goes to show you how scientists are just as bad as religious whack-os when it comes to having what they say or believe questioned. I do believe that if Aliens ever actually landed on Earth, more scientists will end up putting a gun in their mouth than religious people.


I will watch it sometime in the future.

The difference between science and religion though is that we have facts to back up our claims. So let me ask you why you believe the few scientists (very very few) that do not believe but not the 100’s that have proven it to be real?


And here's another little "inconvienient truth" for you people that are SO convinced global warming is caused by people and their SUVs. The "last Ice Age" everyone likes to talk about ISN'T "the last ice age" at all.............it's THE CURRENT ICE AGE.......that last ice age hasn't ended yet contrary to popular belief. Those glaciers are still receeding, and the geological record shows that ice ages aren't over until the glaciers have completely melted. This means we're still warming up as this Ice Age is coming towards it's close and logically will until it actually ends, so why blame human CO2 output?.....you notice no "Man-Made Global Warming Groupies" mention that. I'm pretty sure Land Rovers weren't around when this Ice Age first started warming up, nor when all the previous Ice Ages over the eons have happened, so why blame the poor Land Rovers and muscle cars for it now?

wiki.answers.com...


Yes I know the definition of an ‘ice age’? It is a period of time where the Earth has permanent ice on it. We are still in the current ice age. The difference here though is that for starters it has never heated up as fast as it is now. normally these changes can take 100s if not 1000s of years. The other thing is that there is nothing except for increased carbon levels which can account for the current warming that we are experiencing.This proves nothing.


ANd here's another bit of reading which basically debunks man-made global warming in the sense Al Gore and his cronies and worshipers portray it, on a totally different basis, based on NASA data.

occupycorporatism.com...
edit on 30-9-2012 by Larry L because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by Larry L because: (no reason given)


Hey look, I can dig up NASA satellite pics as well….




NASA handout image shows how satellite data reveals how the new record low Arctic sea ice extent, from September 16, 2012, compares to the average minimum extent over the past 30 years (in yellow).
www.vancouversun.com...


There’s been two record lows this year. The Arctic Ice shelf AND the credibility of people like you…


edit on 30/9/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes? What is your point? Do you think it unusual that a strong earthquake is recorded at a great distance?


No, I wanted to show, that stronger earthquakes from throughout the world could be measured since the beginning of the 20. century.



Actually there were 13 in the twentieth century but using centuries as an arbitrary time period can be misleading. Let's play that game another way...

In the period of 20 years from 1946 to 1965 there were 8 such earthquakes. In the 20 years from 1993 to 2012 there have been 6.

In the 50 year period from 1914 to 1965 there were 11. In the 50 year period from 1961 to 2012 there have been 9.

If that speaks for itself it seems like things have calmed down recently.



Calmed down? The only period, which would be a little comparable to the 11 and about a half years from 2000 onwards with six that big earthquakes would be the 19 year period from 1946 to 1965 with 8 earthquakes.

Apart from that, there were a 20 year period with 6 earthquakes, and two fifty year periods with one of them 11 earthquakes and the other one with 9 earthquakes of that size.
Again I ask: Calmed down???
.



What does that have to do with "electricity from the galactic centre" affecting magma? Magma is not magnetic (see "Curie point"). Never mind the fact that gravity is a far stronger force within the Earth than the galactic magnetic field.



newscience.com.au...

That shows, that electricity in the mantle is able to change movement within the mantle.

Here is a good summary:

news.slashdot.org...

Citation:


Now, a new study (academic paper) finds that iron monoxide, which makes up 9% of the mantle, actually does conduct electricity just like a metal, but only at temperatures and pressures found far beneath the surface."



en.wikipedia.org...


Convection of the mantle is expressed at the surface through the motions of tectonic plates.


Conclusion: Earthquakes can be caused by magnetism, especially local changes of the magnetic strength and flow within the mantle caused by solar storms, supernovas, changes in the earth near galactic magnetic field, magnetic connections with interstellar dust clouds, especially cause we`re in the interaction zone of two, perhaps even three dustclouds.

About the two points I mentioned last:


-Intergalactic magnetic field:


www.astro.ru.nl...



Lastly, magnetic fields thread through the interstellar gas. As these magnetic fields are mostly 'frozen into' the gas, these components cannot move independently but are closely interconnected.



Therefore, magnetic fields influence a wide range of physical processes such as the early stages of star formation, the creation of stellar or black hole jets, or acceleration and propagation of cosmic rays.

Although on large scales, the magnetic field in our home galaxy, the Milky Way, seem to nicely follow the Milky Way spiral arms, the situation on smaller scales is much more complex. The magnetic field is constantly pushed around, churned, amplified and diffused by supernova explosions, shock waves, jets and other dynamical processes in the Milky Way. This turbulent magnetic field also provides important feedback on these gas motions such as transport of gas and energy from the star forming disk to the Galactic halo, star formation or the propagation and acceleration of cosmic rays.


Although the magnetic field is much more complex in smaller scales, it follows the spiral arms and is therefore connected to the galactic center.

- Interaction zones between interstellar dust clouds


We have been living with those "dangerous" effects for a very long time.


Yes, we`ve been in the LIC for many thousand years.

In Wikipedia we can read, we`re in the interaction zone of our LIC and the G cloud.

Here`s an article from May 2010, which shows, we`re headed onto collision course with another cloud, the local bubble.

www.sciencedaily.com...

On May 24. 2010 they stated, that it would be less than 100 years away:


This might mean that the Solar System could enter the million-degree Local Bubble cloud as early as the next century




www.astronomynow.com...

On 1. October 2010 they told us, that the Ribbon had changed dramatically. Nothing about, when it would reach us:

Now, a second set of maps based on another six-months of data collection, shows dramatic changes to that ribbon



The Local Bubble consists of hot plasma, which is electric.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by aboriginee
 


Hey aboriginee,

I haven't completely read the exchange between you and phage but there are a few misconceptions which seem to be surfacing.

For starters the main reason we are probably having increasing earthquakes is due to the fact that that the Indo-Australian plate is breaking up. Simple. Thankfully it is mainly happening out in the ocean so this should minimise hopefully most of the negative effects these quakes may pose to humanity.

The mantle conducts electricity due to the amount of iron etc in it. Even water conducts electricity with enough dissolved ions in it. But liquids (even very viscous ones such as the mantle) are not magnetic because (strong)magnetism requires an alignment of molecules which can only be provided by a solid.

In terms of the very weak magnetic field which the interstellar cloud would have, there is no way this could or would affect the mantle. This would be akin to a child's horseshoe magnetic causing a volcano to erupt. Magnetic fields can and do effect interstellar gas/plasma such as in early stars simply due to the low density of such entities.

Magnetism cannot cause Earthquakes, and any magnet actually capable of doing so would have long since sucked every piece of iron off the planet deep into space.


edit on 1/10/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by aboriginee
 


Calmed down? The only period, which would be a little comparable to the 11 and about a half years from 2000 onwards with six that big earthquakes would be the 19 year period from 1946 to 1965 with 8 earthquakes.
Why start at 2000? Why not use the same time span?


That shows, that electricity in the mantle is able to change movement within the mantle.

Interesting theory but the claim was that electricity from the center of the galaxy affects magma. The article you cite says nothing about magma. Besides, the mantle is not composed of magma.


Conclusion: Earthquakes can be caused by magnetism, especially local changes of the magnetic strength and flow within the mantle caused by solar storms, supernovas, changes in the earth near galactic magnetic field, magnetic connections with interstellar dust clouds, especially cause we`re in the interaction zone of two, perhaps even three dustclouds.
Conclusion based on what? If the theory about electrical conductivity is true, the temperatures required are far above the Curie point, the iron monoxide would be nonmagnetic and the mantle would not be affected by magnetism.


The Local Bubble consists of hot plasma, which is electric.
Plasma is charged particles. So what?
edit on 10/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
USSR experiments in what is today Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan showed that electricity can increase background seismicity rates/statistics.

Thought to throw that here to help the flow of debate.

The technology used was electricity generated by a Magnetohydrodynamic machine apparatus.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


It's called "cooking the books". You can make any chart say 98% of scientist believe something if you're only counting the scientists that believe that "said something". And that's exactly what the "Man-Made Global Warming Groupies" have done. They cook the books. They only pay attention to scientists that tow the man made global warming line, and any scientists that say it's non-sense are completely dismissed. And not only are they dismissed, but the scientists that do support man made global warming do everything they can to destroy the careers of any that speak against them. Just watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle", maybe you'll learn something about how the global warming books are being cooked.

And how can you say you understand that we're at the tail end of the last ice age, then turn around and say "in the last 30 years the ice is melting faster....blah blah blah" as some kind of proof man is causing it? NO **** !!!!! WE'RE AT THE END OF THE ICE AGE !!! Of course the ice is going to be less and less (until it's eventually gone), and it will logically melt faster and faster. The less ice there is, the more liquid water there is. The more liquid water there is surrounding the ice....the faster it melts. It's called heat/cold exchange. The smaller an ice cube gets in a glass of water, the faster it melts. Does that mean there are wee little humans in little SUVs in that glass of water? IT'S NON-SENSE !!!! The smaller glacials and an ice cap floating on water gets, the faster they'll melt.

It's all a cycle, and it was happening LONG before we humans started our industrial revolution. Ice Ages start, Huge glacials form lowering liquid water levels. Lower water levels mean less sun energy being reflected, so things slowly start to heat up. As the heat build over the centuries and eons it in turn starts remelting the ice. And once basically all the ice has melted (around the point we are getting to now), you now once again have mostly water reflecting the sun's energy, and once again things start slowly cooling down and glacials will eventually start reforming giving rise to yet another Ice Age.

That's the cycle the geological record shows and we are currently in no way out of order compared to that geological record. ANd according to that record the warmest period in human history was in the middle ages......we didn't have SUVs then, and our population was miniscule compared to now. Any scientist that mentions that is ridiculed by their peers and their careers murdered. For me....logic dictates that since the Earth's own record shows Antarctica once had no ice on it before this Ice Age started, I would expect Earth will continue to heat up and not level off until Antarctica is once again ice free (or close to it) like it was pre-last ice age.

Like I said.......just go watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. It explains everything, and features many of those scientists that were formerly part of the IPCC. You can't have all the answers unless you've at least heard and considered both sides. It seems to me people like you staunchly refuse to consider both sides. It's like you people just don't feel good about yourselves unless you fully believe in man-made global warming no matter how much evidence points to it being non-sense. It's like a form of "white-guilt", but in this case it's "human-guilt".

We should just all be against burning oil because of pollution (which is actually a fact unlike man-made global warming).....and who the hell knows what the Earth itself may need that oil for. I personally look at oil as the Earth's blood. We shouldn't be taking it because we don't know if the Earth actually needs it for something like....say.......lubricating that spinning molten core......we wouldn't want that core seizing up, now would we? Don't support the man-made global warming agenda just to support it....or because it makes you feel good about yourself. If you're smart enough to be coming to ATS, you should be smart enough that the rediculous amounts of money Al Gore and various companies and "Man-Made Global Warming Grouplies" have made off of man-made global warming should be throwing up MAJOR red-flags, and cause you to be looking into what their agenda REALLY is. (though I can tell you what it is right now.......control (= power) and money, LOTS of money.

And as a quick footnote: Why, you ask, would scientist support the agenda if they knew it was really all BS? Because 1) The agenda really isn't hurting anybody. It doesn't REALLY hurt anything if people believe global warming is man-made. And 2) The majority of scientist's research is funded by government organizations. By orgs run by people like Al Gore as it happens. How much funding do you think a scientist would get if he's speaking against global warming being man-man made? TheGlobalWarmingSwindle gets into that too
edit on 2-10-2012 by Larry L because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Larry L


It's called "cooking the books". You can make any chart say 98% of scientist believe something if you're only counting the scientists that believe that "said something". And that's exactly what the "Man-Made Global Warming Groupies" have done. They cook the books. They only pay attention to scientists that tow the man made global warming line, and any scientists that say it's non-sense are completely dismissed. And not only are they dismissed, but the scientists that do support man made global warming do everything they can to destroy the careers of any that speak against them.


Okay, its all well and good to claim they’ve ‘cooked the books but I’ve presented to you four (I think) independent surveys which show that most scientists agree that current global warming is being caused by man. You have presented nothing.

I have watched some of your film and I promise to watch the rest of it when possible (at the moment I’m stuck in the middle of the Pilbara desert with only my iphone and a laptop with no sound capabilities) but already there are gaping holes in the evidence presented and the assertions that ‘someone’ doesn’t want Africa to succeed are absurd. The concerns of global warming are certainly one of the last things to influence African political policy. Yes I will admit that there are many vested interests in anthropogenic climate change being true, but there are far more vested in the opposite conclusion. Simple logic will tell you this. Once again please tell me how installing solar panels on my roof so that I become totally self reliant in anyway helps the PTB’s agenda.

As for you and the films assertions about science, I can tell you right now that they are complete and utter rubbish. I should tell you now that I am an Earth Scientist and yes in the private sector there are often pressures to come up with a certain result. Overall however science is exists purely to gather knowledge. Conclusions must be repeatable and are peer reviewed. It is not some cut throat industry which exists at the whim of politicians. We don’t give a flying firetruck what politicians want. We are simply a bunch of nerds who want to know the truth




And how can you say you understand that we're at the tail end of the last ice age, then turn around and say "in the last 30 years the ice is melting faster....blah blah blah" as some kind of proof man is causing it? NO **** !!!!! WE'RE AT THE END OF THE ICE AGE !!! Of course the ice is going to be less and less (until it's eventually gone), and it will logically melt faster and faster. The less ice there is, the more liquid water there is. The more liquid water there is surrounding the ice....the faster it melts. It's called heat/cold exchange. The smaller an ice cube gets in a glass of water, the faster it melts. Does that mean there are wee little humans in little SUVs in that glass of water? IT'S NON-SENSE !!!! The smaller glacials and an ice cap floating on water gets, the faster they'll melt.


Um we have no idea whether or not we are currently heading toward the end of the current ice age. But there is nothing that can account for the current high temperatures except for greenhouse gases. Nothing. The increase in solar activity we’ve seen in this past century ended some time in the 80’s I believe yet temperatures continue to skyrocket.

As for your ridiculous assertion about ice cubes in a glass of water, here’s a news flash for you – Arctic sea ice has always floated on water




It's all a cycle, and it was happening LONG before we humans started our industrial revolution. Ice Ages start, Huge glacials form lowering liquid water levels. Lower water levels mean less sun energy being reflected, so things slowly start to heat up. As the heat build over the centuries and eons it in turn starts remelting the ice. And once basically all the ice has melted (around the point we are getting to now), you now once again have mostly water reflecting the sun's energy, and once again things start slowly cooling down and glacials will eventually start reforming giving rise to yet another Ice Age.


This is not even close to how it works. I could fill a book on how what you suggest defies logic in every way without even having to look up a single reference. For starter ice (including continental glacial ice) reflects far more heat than water does. Look up ‘albedo effect’.

Here’s a link to get you started
en.wikipedia.org...




That's the cycle the geological record shows and we are currently in no way out of order compared to that geological record. ANd according to that record the warmest period in human history was in the middle ages......we didn't have SUVs then, and our population was miniscule compared to now. Any scientist that mentions that is ridiculed by their peers and their careers murdered. For me....logic dictates that since the Earth's own record shows Antarctica once had no ice on it before this Ice Age started, I would expect Earth will continue to heat up and not level off until Antarctica is once again ice free (or close to it) like it was pre-last ice age.


If we were discussing this 20 years ago you may be close to the mark. But the hottest period ever in recorded history is NOW. I will completely agree that yes there have been hotter periods but these took 100’s if not 1000’s of years to build up (not decades). Also they all had specific measurable reasons to become hotter. There is only one anomalous feature that can explain todays temperatures – greenhouse gases

Here’s just one study that came out the other day which shows this
geology.gsapubs.org...



Like I said.......just go watch The Great Global Warming Swindle. It explains everything, and features many of those scientists that were formerly part of the IPCC. You can't have all the answers unless you've at least heard and considered both sides. It seems to me people like you staunchly refuse to consider both sides. It's like you people just don't feel good about yourselves unless you fully believe in man-made global warming no matter how much evidence points to it being non-sense. It's like a form of "white-guilt", but in this case it's "human-guilt"


I have seen both sides…

Here’s some homework for you. Please post even one link to a peer reviewed independent study which proves global anthropogenic warming is a myth. Just one…

(and no climate change skeptic blogs don’t count).


We should just all be against burning oil because of pollution (which is actually a fact unlike man-made global warming).....and who the hell knows what the Earth itself may need that oil for. I personally look at oil as the Earth's blood. We shouldn't be taking it because we don't know if the Earth actually needs it for something like....say.......lubricating that spinning molten core......we wouldn't want that core seizing up, now would we? Don't support the man-made global warming agenda just to support it....or because it makes you feel good about yourself. If you're smart enough to be coming to ATS, you should be smart enough that the rediculous amounts of money Al Gore and various companies and "Man-Made Global Warming Grouplies" have made off of man-made global warming should be throwing up MAJOR red-flags, and cause you to be looking into what their agenda REALLY is. (though I can tell you what it is right now.......control (= power) and money, LOTS of money.


I totally agree with everything you’ve said here. But understand there is big money on BOTH sides of the debate. As I’ve said above keep in mind Al Gore didn’t become President. His oil loving opponent did

And as a quick footnote: Why, you ask, would scientist support the agenda if they knew it was really all BS? Because 1) The agenda really isn't hurting anybody. It doesn't REALLY hurt anything if people believe global warming is man-made. And 2) The majority of scientist's research is funded by government organizations. By orgs run by people like Al Gore as it happens. How much funding do you think a scientist would get if he's speaking against global warming being man-man made?

Most studies are actually funded by independent universities. Also keep in mind there are 100’s of large polluters which pay scientists much more than governments and/or universities to try and debunk the reality of man made climate change (such of the scientists on your documentary).

Also here’s a link you may find interesting. I will watch the rest of your doco when I can though.

www.durangobill.com...
edit on 2/10/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
In my opinion, the Human species has been very fortunate over the last 20,000 years or so. If you look at the paleo-climateological and geological records, the earth is "usually" a very violent place. Over the last 20,000 years or so, the earth has been pretty mild and tame in comparison to early records...and this "mild time" has allowed our species to flourish and advance.

If you consider that 70,000 years ago, our species nearly checked out (most likely from the explosion of Toba) then you have to admit we have been pretty lucky. (This is evident in the DNA bottle neck. At one time roughly 70,000 years ago, the human population was reduced to something like 10,000 people on the entire planet...

If the earth returns to "business as usual", I'm pretty sure it's going to be most unpleasant.

I'm not saying that mankind is not contributing to or accelerating climate change. I will say that I observe the shifts in my own neck of the woods...the weather and the seasons are just different than they were when I was a kid. Natural or man-made? I have no idea...but that does not mean it is not happening.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


I'm only going to be replying to a particular thing you said here. Due to the limitations of my browser, I can't really post up data charts or pics of any kind aside from just links.

The part I'm replying to is simply you stating that NOW is the warmest period is human history. WRONG. And if you were really the "Earth scientist" you claim to be, instead of just spreading man made global warming propaganda, you never would have said that, since you'd know about the period which is known to climatologists as "The Medieval Warm Period", which lasted about 300-400 years, from (about) 1000ad to (about) 1400ad. Those are estimates and just working off top of my head memory. A time when there were wine vineyard, year round, in the most northern parts of England. This is also one of the most prosperous times in ALL of human history based on the things we were building back then.

This "medieval warm period" was then followed by about 100-200 years of what REAL climatologist refer to as "the little ice age". A period in Englands history when the Thames would be completely frozen over in the winter months, and Englanders would be having huge bazzars right on the frozen over Thames.

Then you could talk about the Holocene era in which temeratures were FAR higher than even the medieval warm period for over 4000 years. A time when Arctic researchers say the was no norther ice cap at all. Polar Bears existed at this time, and they seem to have made it through perfectly fine. Man made CO2 had nothing to do with either of these warm periods. In fact CO2 is one of the LEAST effective greenhouse gasses. The most effective GHG in out atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is not even half a percent of our atmosphere. And the majority of that half a percent comes from the oceans, the 2nd majority form Volcanos, the 3rd majority from dying grasses, leaves and the like. Humans are WAY down the list of CO2 contributors. (Hopefully you're learning something here)

You're just spreading propaganda based on basically pseudo-science, and numbers cooked to portray an agenda. Once you watch The Great Global Warming Swidle you'll be better educated on this agenda, and btw, when you watch it pay attention to WHO the people are that are being interviewed......some of the most respected climatologists and ecologists and other science fields in the world, even the founder of GreenPeace. Well......I should say WERE well respected......until they started speaking out against man-made global warming. Most have had their lives threatened since.

Oh, and just one more quick thing. That last pic you posted in your previous post...the NASA satelite image. That is one single frame from a video, and the frame is from the end of summer. In The Great Global Warming Swindle, they have the actual video from that satelite from when it launch in the early/mid 90's through till the video I keep refering to was made, and it shows every single year the ice cap recedes to that point by end of summer, and fills all the way back out by the end of winter. This is nothing new according to actual arctic research scientists, and it's only now that there are satelite images showing the ice receding every year that can be shown to the public to rile them up to suit an agenda, are people outside of Arctic science even paying attention to the yearly ice recession and extention.

Again, this is all gone over in the video, and includes data from the world's PREMIER Arctic scientist. (I can't rememeber his name off the top of my head, it's been so long since I've watched The Great Global Warming Swindle). His credientials are in the video.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by aboriginee

Yes, and by the way, that would mean, that the reasons for those changes mainly aren`t man-made!


No, it is still man-made!


The Earth is a living thing. She doesn't want to be shaved, smoked, drilled, mined, infected by those tiny things called parasitic humans!


Thank You.

I don't get those who seem hell-bent on making humans not responsible for their actions.

Is it a cop out? So they can continue in their destructive ways of raping the earth?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Larry L
 


That's hardcore bs. You're the one spreading propaganda. The medivel warming period had REGIONAL fluctuations which indicate higher temps than a decade ago. Certainly not global, and we already surpassed this anyways.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 




For starters the main reason we are probably having increasing earthquakes is due to the fact that that the Indo-Australian plate is breaking up.


For old bunnies, may I ask some questions?

Why is the Indo-Australien plate breaking up?
And why is the read sea breaking apart?
And why is Africa breaking apart?
www.spiegel.de...
Why have there been so many sinkholes appearing worldwide during the last years?

Could it be, that the earth is expanding?
And no, I`m neither a believer in the hollow earth theory nor do I believe in 2012.



The mantle conducts electricity due to the amount of iron etc in it. Even water conducts electricity with enough dissolved ions in it. But liquids (even very viscous ones such as the mantle) are not magnetic because (strong)magnetism requires an alignment of molecules which can only be provided by a solid.


Yes, the outer mantle is very conductive.

www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2008) — Researchers from INSU-CNRS, working with chemists at a CNRS research unit, have explained that the high conductivity of the Earth’s upper mantle is due to molten carbonates. They demonstrated the very high conductivity of this form of carbon.


But also the inner mantle is conductive, cause of the pressure acting upon it.

www.zmescience.com...


it appears that a mineral called Wustite (FeO), believed to be a significant component of the Earth’s mantle, can be made to conduct electricity at high temperatures and pressures.



The very lower part of the mantle is liquid.

www.ucl.ac.uk...


Thermodynamics of silicate liquids in the deep Earth



The predicted melting temperature of MgSiO3 perovskite at
136 GPa is 5400±600 K, which if lowered by freezing point depression by 1300 K, yields a mantle solidus
temperature of 4100 K, identical to recent estimates of the temperature at the base of the mantle. We argue
on this basis that partial melting at the base of the mantle is plausible.


But that liquid layer is also conductive.

www.sciencedirect.com...


This observation, combined with previous measurements of the conductivity of olivine (A. Duba, H.C. Heard and R. Schock, 1974) make it possible to state with reasonable confidence that melts occurring within the mantle will be more conductive by 3–4 orders of magnitude than their refractory residues. Potential applications to geothermometry are discussed.




In terms of the very weak magnetic field which the interstellar cloud would have, there is no way this could or would affect the mantle. This would be akin to a child's horseshoe magnetic causing a volcano to erupt. Magnetic fields can and do effect interstellar gas/plasma such as in early stars simply due to the low density of such entities.

Magnetism cannot cause Earthquakes, and any magnet actually capable of doing so would have long since sucked every piece of iron off the planet deep into space.


Here`s s.th. about magnetic reconnection between plasmas, even through far distances:

en.wikipedia.org...


Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration



'Dayside reconnection' allows interconnection of the Earth's magnetic field with that of the Sun (the Interplanetary Magnetic Field), allowing particle and energy entry into the Earth's vicinity.


Between plasmas even small forces can generate great changes:

en.wikipedia.org...


Magnetic reconnection in highly conductive systems is important because it concentrates energy in time and space, so that gentle forces applied to a plasma for long periods of time can cause violent explosions and bursts of radiation


Owens, a scientist, claims, that the earth`s outer core is plasma.

www.gsi.de...


Under extreme conditions of temperature, pressure and density, matter can assume a fourth state: the plasma


www.wincom.net...


Owen points out that a plasma core provides a better explanation for the behaviour of the mantle which surrounds the Earth's outer core. The mantle lies directly beneath the crust and its convection currents are responsible for the creation of new crust and continental movement.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by aboriginee
 


World Forum

global changes

sustainable development


These are all buzzwords which stink of the United Nations and their social engineering project going on decades now, that is perpetrated to convince humanity it's the enemy of itself, the earth must be protected, blach blah blah...

The Earth is fine, Space is fine. The sun isn't going to explode anytime soon. The universe is not collapsing...

All this alarmist BS is churned out in one way or another by the United Nations (see Agenda 21)... instead of Climategate now it's Earthgate... failing that it'll be Spacegate etc etc...

Nobody remembers Chicken Little??

"the sky is falling! the sky is falling!!"

only. it's not.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by aboriginee
 


IF tye earth is expanding, it's likely at a very, very slow rate as is happening on the sun.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by Larry L
 


That's hardcore bs. You're the one spreading propaganda. The medivel warming period had REGIONAL fluctuations which indicate higher temps than a decade ago. Certainly not global, and we already surpassed this anyways.


No. The hardcore BS is what you just stated. We have no even come close to the warm climate of the medieval warm period. If you can get grapes to grow en masse in northern England at this point in human history, you'd be a miracle worker. Nor was it regional, similar data can be found at similar latitudes throughout Europe, the middle east and Asia in the historical record. And it was for hundreds of years, not a few seasons or something which could be written off.

You are either a liar, or don't know what you're talking about. I'll listen to some of the world's most respected climatologists on the matter......not you.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Larry L
 


Neither. How about you back up your claims, jerk? I'll wait for you to apologize when you figure out you've been duped.

Clearly stated in the first paragraph:


The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region


You see moron, it was regional. You bought a bunch of hooey from a video and are now spouting out propaganda. For shame.



It continues:


the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.
Link

Here's a graph for the reading comprehension impaired:




edit on 2-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by aboriginee

Yes, and by the way, that would mean, that the reasons for those changes mainly aren`t man-made!


No, it is still man-made!


The Earth is a living thing. She doesn't want to be shaved, smoked, drilled, mined, infected by those tiny things called parasitic humans!


Thank You.

I don't get those who seem hell-bent on making humans not responsible for their actions.

Is it a cop out? So they can continue in their destructive ways of raping the earth?


I'm certainly not suggesting humans aren't responsible for our actions. We clear cut, we pollute, we rob creatures of their habitat, and we take, take, take and never give back to the Earth we are taking from. We could very simply give back most of which we take by simply pooping in the dirt.

It's people like you though, who are hell-bent on blaming the evil scumbag humans for everything. We certainly do our fair share of damage, but the amount of CO2 we produce is completely insignificant to climate change. The leaves of the world which rot after they are shed from the trees durring the Autumn months produces FAR more CO2 every year than humans. On top of that, CO2 is one of the LEAST effectual greenhouse gasses. In fact, if you actually see the REAL data presented by the world's most respected climatologists in The Great Global Warming Swindle, you'll see that rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere actually FOLLOW, not precede warming periods, and following cooling periods CO2 levels drop. This is because the oceans are by FAR the largest contributor to CO2, and the more water evaporating = more CO2 being released by the oceans, and vice versa.

When the founder of Green Peace is saying man-made global warming is a scam (which he says and explains why in The Great Global Warming Swindle), you know somethings fishy about the whole subject.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join