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.


Balance and Adaptation

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 14 2004 @ 12:18 AM
I received this weeks Time Magazine issue a few days ago and came upon this short article: Why High-Flying Planes Make Us Less Cool

Its says: "Clouds [and clouds created by "contrails"], which reflect sunlight, ought to cool the earth. But they can also hold in warmth. That second effect swamps the first." Somehow I don't quite believe the second effect swamps the first.

It always gets noticeably cooler when there are clouds up above and especially after a nice rain. Even on a sunny day, if a cloud passes under the sun momentarily, it gets cool fairly quickly, but only for a few seconds/minutes until the cloud passes. So, if the warmer weather scenario actually holds true, what does it mean?

It means there will be more evaporation, which means more rain, which can also lead to more clouds, which also means possibly more snow during the winter, which also means more cooling than warming. I think we can say the Earth can balance itself out.

So what is actually spouting from most planes then to cause this effect? Is it really just "contrails" forming into clouds? Is it "chemtrails" being spat out? Well, for it to be chemtrails, the chemtrails would probably fall back to earth just like most people claim they are, to "bring down our immune systems," or whatever.

But the contrails forming into clouds actually makes more sense (as has been said on this thread a few times: Painting the Sky.)

I'm sure there are chemicals from some planes being sprayed out of them, but most do not. Maybe the grid patterns "they" create in the sky are there to form a blanket covering of clouds to bring down the temperature - or make it hotter (like the article claims the contrail created clouds are doing).

Anyways, this thread isn't really about "contrails" or "chemtrails." It is about the earth and it's inhabitants balancing/adapting themselves in times of change.

Take this article about the respawning of Coral Reefs in the Maldives: CNN Link

It talks about how, with the help of man, the coral reefs are on a comeback, in the Maldives, after warmer waters caused coral bleaching.

But interestingly enough, the article mentions this: Azeez was particularly encouraged by the fact that the corals that spawned had settled in the shallow waters of Vabbinfaru after 1998 and seemed to be more resistant to heat. "It gives us hope that the reef is coming back to life," he said.

It just goes to show that living creatures will adapt to changes and balance themselves out, and fairly quickly, if the need arises.

I still think the whole Global Warming thing is bunk. I think Global Warming will lead to Global Cooling - its a balancing act.

The above link isn't the only source of this information of course.

What is interesting to note is that there was a "Global Cooling" frenzy decades ago. It virtually mirrors the "Global Warming" crap that we see now.

So, what are the reasons for creating all this mass "hysteria?" And do you think the earth will adapt and balance itself because of change, as well as the creatures inhabiting it?

[Edited on 5-14-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

posted on May, 14 2004 @ 06:39 PM
I agree ... all this "the Earth's trees are running out" crap is bunk too. The Earth has been around much longer than any of us has, so we can't say what it can't do. All this Global Warming crap might be true, but it's only apart of the cycle, the balance. The people that promote it are just looking to get their names in the papers and history.

[Edited on 5/14/04 by xenophanes85]

posted on May, 15 2004 @ 03:26 PM
xenophanes85, I totally agree with you too. Trees are definately not running out. They may be being stripped down quite quickly, but most trees can grow back quite fast.

I have Poplar (which is a fast growing tree by nature) trees in my yard that started out about a foot or two high. That was a little more than 15 years ago. They are now almost 100 feet high. They are kind of like "weed" trees though. Trees you don't want. They spread prolifically. Unfortunately, they were planted by the previous owner.

We have had to cut down a few because their root systems were growing towards the house and into our septic field. There are many species of trees that grow fast (and any tree that is getting what it needs will, naturally, grow faster than most of its brethren in other areas - just like anything). And they have even found out that trees in a city are growing faster than trees that are in the country. Why? Good old pollution. :-D

The Global Warming fanatics are probably doing what you say. They are just trying to get their voice heard - they want, no, need attention. :-D

The Earth will balance itself out. As you said, its been around a long time, it can probably go through just about anything.

posted on May, 17 2004 @ 03:10 AM
Here's what I don't understand about global warming and the hole in the uh-oh zone.

Supposedly, the hole in the ozone is caused by pollution. But the bulk of the industrialized countries are north of the equator. So why is the hole over the south pole. Corliois effect winds should push pollutants north, not south.

A lot of xspurts in the US claim that average tempeatures have gone up over the past century. More likely, weather stations that were in small towns are now surrounded by cityscape, with its attendant heat island.

CNN showed a tape of pervasive air pollution in a national forest in southern US. I could have died. They were in the SMOKEY MOUNTAINS NATL FOREST. The decaying leaves give off CO2 and chlorophyl, which makes the famous haze that the first colonists saw when they named the place in the 1700's. Jeez!

Does anyone remember Mt. Pinotubo in the Phillapines? US used to have Subic Bay naval base, and now we don't. Basically, there is a volcano where the base was. That Mt. poured more SO4 into the biosphere than the whole of the industrial revolution. Mt. St. Helen's was nearly as bad. Those two volcanos alone can account for the whole alleged temp change of global warming.

Freon is a noble gas. That means it doesn't combine with other stuff. Inert. So how does it damage O2? I know, I've had the lectures about refracted sunlight dissolving the bonds between oxy molecules (they'd just reform). But freon is heavy. It weighs more than any of the ingredients in air. So how will it get 7 miles above sea level to do any damage? The real reason freon was outlawed is because Dupont's patent expired in 1997. So they developed fancy refridgerants like r16 and r18 that cost 10 times as much. But Dupont has them patented.

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:16 PM
I think in all of this tree-huggy greenhouse stuff, it's important to recognise that the earth's always - and has always - gone through different climactic cycles. Thus, it's rather narcissistic of us (if you ask me) to assume that all of our cars and such are what's causing all these problems.
Are we catalysing it? Probably. But I seriously doubt that we are the forefront purveyors of the issue.

I think we have a lot of trees, and that as long as the number remains constant, we should be "fine."

The cloud thing...
I think it's more long term. That is, if a cloud blocks out the sun for a few minutes, it's going to cool down: The sun is being blocked, thus, its heat is being blocked. However, when a cloud inhibits the sun's rays for long periods of time, it will tend to "cook" the air underneath it. Humidity will also increase...
The same could be said of, say, tin foil. For a few moments, tin foil will simply block out heat. However, after that, the tin heats up and warms up whatever it is wrapped around. A poor, non-scientific analogy, I know. But hopefully it helps?

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 11:11 PM
mauskov, what you say definately makes sense. Although, I think it depends on how thick the cloud cover is. :-D

new topics

top topics

log in