|
|
Orwell knew
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri |
 Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:01 pm
|
 |
|
Has Amy Goodman ever done a show on the constant ONGOING atmospheric seeding and weather manipulation efforts as she drones on and on about "global warming? How about Greenpeace? How about AlGore he SURELY has to know about how weather is being used as a WEAPON for social engineering/profits???
Hmmm.. didn't think so.
The so called mainstream "left" is just as corporately owned as the so called mainstream "right" at least at the top eschelons of the Beast System. The 'Amy Goodmans' of the world are coming to be seen in practice as being just as corrupted (in their only dancing around the periphery of issues) as the Shill O'reillys of the world. They are simply different arms of The Beast keeping The people separated and always blinded and away from the DEEPER truths. Like watching a puppet show. Punch and Judy. Bread and circus.
When AlGore can win a Nobel prize for his work (LOL) on "global warming" without ever once mentioning the CONSTANT INTENTIONAL disruption and chaos being INTENTIONALLY CREATED overhead in our skies WE KNOW the ENTIRE scientific process from top to bottom LEFT TO RIGHT is CORRUPTED!!!
Not ONE Fking honest person-- NOT ONE!!! |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| One Honest Person
Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:24 pm
|
|
|
Orwell Knew,
Unfortunately, so true.
A major atmospheric modification project, one that is so obvious, is being undertaken without any public discussion.
We sorely need one person, in the know, to come forward, much the same as Daniel Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers.
Sad that none of those in the know have the conscience of cajones to do that.
This doesn't change the facts of our rapidily deteriorating global environment.
And that reality is what I am attempting to document on this particular thread.
Last edited by Sore Throat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
Orwell knew
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri |
|
Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:50 am
|
|
|
Sore Throat, I don't think at this stage of the game it's wise to rule out that these "chemtrails" may actually be causing or worsening this "rapidly deteriorating global environment" (and I imagine I'm stating the obvious to someone who already knows) I simply think one can't really have a full conversation about "global warming /change etc. without addressing the (as we both know ) INTENTIONAL modification efforts always present. (but go ahead it's your thread 
IF (as I think the satellite maps and other posters here show) The AF or some other units are actively seeding rain above flooding areas of now Missouri, Iowa, etc. then at the least the question must be asked how much are they also causing /manipulating "global warming" as well. (and other alleged effects) Social engineering and the profits that come with it perhaps??? |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:12 am
|
|
|
quote:
I don't think at this stage of the game it's wise to rule out that these "chemtrails" may actually be causing or worsening this "rapidly deteriorating global environment"
Once again, we are in total agreement. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole
Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:08 am
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole
Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.
Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during the summer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeksshows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when therewas an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.
"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice – ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.
Each summer the sea ice melts before reforming again during the long Arctic winter but the loss of sea ice last year was so extensive that much of the Arctic Ocean became open water, with the water-ice boundary coming just 700 miles away from the North Pole.
This meant that about 70 per cent of the sea ice present this spring was single-year ice formed over last winter. Scientists predict that at least 70 per cent of this single-year ice – and perhaps all of it – will melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said.
"Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season started with even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year's sea-ice minimum. We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August," he said.
Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, agreed that much now depends onwhat happens to the Arctic weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good chance that it will all melt away at the North Pole, it's certainly feasible, but it's not guaranteed," Dr Lindsay said.
The polar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increase in average temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea iceis lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine,said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.
"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said.
There are other indications that the Arctic sea ice is showing signs of breaking up. Scientists at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Centre said that the North Water 'polynya' – an expanse of open water surrounded on all sides by ice – that normally forms near Alaska and Banks Island off the Canadian coast, is much larger than normal. Polynyas absorb heat from the sun and eat away at the edge of the sea ice.
Inuit natives living near Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland are also reporting thatthe sea ice there is starting to break up much earlier than normal and that they have seen wide cracks appearing in the ice where it normally remains stable. Satellite measurements collected over nearly 30 years show a significant decline in the extent of the Arctic sea ice, which has become more rapid in recent years. |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:12 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sore Throat
quote:
I don't think at this stage of the game it's wise to rule out that these "chemtrails" may actually be causing or worsening this "rapidly deteriorating global environment"
Once again, we are in total agreement.
Then where is there any mention of chemtrails, weather manipulation etc etc in the links and articles you have provided SORE THROAT??
oh, thats right, there is none.
Global warming is a Cover for the real agenda happening above our heads.
All the links and articles you are "documenting" are total garbage. SCAM!! |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Hansen describes ‘planetary emergency’
Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:49 am
|
|
|
http://blogs.earthsky.org/dankulpinski/2008/06/28/hansen-describes-planetary-emergency/
Hansen describes ‘planetary emergency’
Dan Kulpinski
NASA scientist James Hansen issued an urgent warning in his speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., June 23.
The occasion was the 20th anniversary of his landmark 1988 testimony before a Senate panel, in which he warned that global warming was here and we were causing most of it.
Now he’s being just as forceful, but the outlook is worse. “We really are in a planetary emergency,” Hansen said. Greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide) have continued basically unabated since 1988, he noted, and atmospheric levels are now at 385 ppm (parts per million) — and we’re adding 2 ppm per year. At 450 ppm there would be no ice left on the planet, which would mean major changes in climate and sea level. At the world’s current rate of emissions, we could hit that point 33 years from now.
Hansen, who is the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, said with greater than 99.9 percent confidence that the dangerous level is 350 ppm, so we have to cut our carbon emissions very soon. “We can overshoot a bit, but not on a timescale more than decades,” he said.
One issue with various international discussions and agreements on global warming, he said, is that nobody has defined what “dangerous” is. Hansen defines as “dangerous” consequences that are irreversible — the possible extinction of plant and animal species, the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica melting (and the subsequent sea level rise). These are not reversible on any timescale relevant to humans, he said, pointing out that yes, species have gone extinct before and new species appeared — but it takes hundreds of thousands of years for those new species to come on the scene.
One “tipping level” that we’ve already passed is the existence of Arctic sea ice. “Over the next five to ten years we are certainly going to lose it all,” he said. But this, he says, is reversible.
He noted that ice mass on Greenland is happening more and more rapidly (which we measure with the Gravity satellite), and that West Antarctica is also losing ice at an increasing rate.
Then he recited a list of familiar global-warming impacts: The subtropics have expanded toward the poles, making the southern U.S. more dry; glaciers are receding worldwide; warmer ocean temperatures and acidified waters are stressing coral reefs.
“The only way we can prevent going to an extremely different planet,” he said, is to stop burning coal in power plants that don’t capture the carbon emissions. He wants such uncaptured coal phased out by 2030 and also promotes a carbon tax, to put a price on emissions.
“Eventually we have to go to carbon-free energy,” he said.
One way he proposed to get there is to build a low-loss electric grid. He said we have the technology to build a high-energy, direct current grid and we could put it underground. We could have the trunk lines in within one decade, he feels. (U.S. electricity transmission and distribution losses were 7.5 percent in 1995, according to Wikipedia.)
During the question session afterward, he pointed out that the 2 ppm we add per year is 10,000 times what nature contributes each year in the carbon cycle. “We’re clearly in the driver’s seat.”
(You can find a PDF or Powerpoint of Hansen’s presentation here.)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Later in the day, Hansen testified on Capitol Hill before a House committee. Check out the Associated Press coverage here.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3NLY5naFMJIsbKHNeiWIKMTsEiQD91G3IBG0
- - - - - |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Global Warming's Twin Evil: Wildfires and Drought
Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:28 am
|
|
|
http://www.alternet.org/environment/89980/?ses=ed62dc7cca27f70cb77b1fd68ce173f9
Global Warming's Twin Evil: Wildfires and Drought
By Dr. Reese Halter, AlterNet.
The hundreds of fires hitting California right now are a wake-up call to both government and California residents: we're unprepared for a rapid climate change crackling at our doorstep.
The facts are unequivocal, and point to a troubling future ahead. Over 850 fires, scorching some 200,000 acres, have set a new 2008 record for early-season wildfires in California. And from March to May precipitation has been the lowest since the inception of record keeping in 1894. In California as well as throughout the West, mountain snowmelts are occurring earlier, and winter storms are arriving later, extending the fire season by at least several weeks.
On June 5, 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state-wide drought. Droughts fuel wildfires. Across western North America global warming has caused prolonged droughts -- some areas are now entering their 13th year -- and warmer temperatures. These are the same kind of conditions that led to the mega fires of 2003 and 2007.
What's more, in California and throughout the West, millions of acres of drought have created tinder-dry kindling through weakened forests that have been ravaged by billions of indigenous bark beetles and disease. Currently, there is no serious policy being implemented to clear out these dead trees, fireproof communities and inform residents of a plan of action.
Why is this happening?
A mismanaged forest policy has suppressed the natural occurrence of fire, and as a result, many of our California forests are overstocked, and now tinder dry. When lightning strikes occur in combination with drought, mega-fires can't be far away.
Meanwhile, global warming is known to fuel mega-wildfires, particularly in the northern Rocky Mountains. In addition, over the past two decades mountain ecosystems across the West ranging from 5,300 to more than 8,000 feet above sea level have had the largest increase in big fires. It is these mountain ecosystems that are important for retaining snowfall and releasing it slowly into reservoirs. There are at least 350,000 homes in California that are on the urban/wildland interface and they remain at high risk to ever-increasing threat of wildfires.
Global warming is also significantly impacting our security by impinging upon our water supply. Even though average snowfalls in California from December to February of 2008 were recorded, by May state-wide water reservoirs that feed, drive and grow the state's economy -- the eighth mightiest on the planet -- were only slightly above 53 percent of their respective capacities.
The drought from March to May along with warmer temperatures evaporated at least 30 percent of the Sierra Nevada snowpack -- which accounts for the brunt of California's annual water supply -- directly into the air by-passing the solid (ice) to liquid (water) phase.
While the California House and Senate continue to debate where the state will secure more water for our future, we are running out of time.
Across the state the moisture content of grasses and brush are near or at 5 percent (usually at this time of year they should be around 20 percent) -- conditions mimicking tinder-dryness usually found in October -- at the end of the fire season.
What can Californians do at the state and local level? The state needs to mobilize its massive prison population to help thin out the overstocked forests and fire-proof the communities most at risk. The state needs to significantly beef-up its fire protection and emergency system because, like it or not, wildfires burning with greater ferocity and higher intensities and more prolonged droughts are on their way. At the local level, every home-owner can help removing dead trees, excessive brush, overhanging vegetation on roofs and keeping fuel cans at least 100 feet from homes. There's no room for carelessness, whether it's making an illegal campfire, lighting firecrackers this 4th of July or tossing lit cigarettes out a car window. We need to come together to solve this problem before anyone else loses a home, or even a life.
See more stories tagged with: drought, climate change, global warming, wildfire
Dr. Reese Halter is the author of the upcoming book Save Money -- Go Green. He can be contacted through www.DrReese.com. |
| |
|
|
Orwell knew
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:09 pm
|
|
|
Drought, as well as much of the mid-wests flooding appears to be being caused by the constant intentional manipulation of both the jet stream and various fronts visable on many of the satellite maps. To blame "global warming" for this intentional weather modification/cloud seeding seems very short sighted and designed to mislead the public in search of the wrong questions/answers. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| What...not Why
Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:54 pm
|
|
|
Orwell Knew,
Once again, the purpose of this thread is to as best as possible to document accelerating climate change throughout the globe.
It is my OPINION that there is a significant impact of human activities on climate change.
Atmospheric modifications, both intentional and inadvertent, are clearly one aspect of this problem.
What is open to discussion is the relative impact and consequences of these activities.
Let's be candid...it is a very complex system.
There are multiple interactions, feedback mechanisms and "tipping points".
I certainly don't feel competent to sort out the relative magnitude of all contributions to climate change.
It is my OPINION that those engaged in global geoengineering projects do so with a tremendous amount of hubris, especially in the absence of any public disclosure and discussion.
I will continue to document climate change with the data that is publicly available.
This does not imply my wholehearted agreement with the conclusions of each and every article that is shared for discussion purposes.
Last edited by Sore Throat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:27 pm
|
|
|
There is plenty of "public" information regarding weather modification, and warming due to chemtrails. You just aren't posting it ST. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Get a life
Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:34 am
|
|
|
mmmmbarium,
You need to get a life.
On this same forum I have started and continute to post to a thread on geoengineering.
You are certainly free to contribute to that thread, or start one of your own.
Your constant haarping on this thread is quite frankly...
boring.
Last edited by Sore Throat on Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
Orwell knew
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 475
Location: Mid-Missouri |
| Re: What...not Why
Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:46 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sore Throat
Orwell Knew,
Once again, the purpose of this thread is to as best as possible to document accelerating climate change throughout the globe.
It is my OPINION that there is a significant impact of human activities on climate change.
Atmospheric modifications, both intentional and inadvertent, are clearly one aspect of this problem.
What is open to discussion is the relative impact and consequences of these activities.
Let's be candid...it is a very complex system.
There are multiple interactions, feedback mechanisms and "tipping points".
I certainly don't feel competent to sort out the relative magnitude of all contributions to climate change.
It is my OPINION that those engaged in global geoengineering projects do so with a tremendous amount of hubris, especially in the absence of any public disclosure and discussion.
I will continue to document climate change with the data that is publicly available.
This does not imply my wholehearted agreement with the conclusions of each and every article that is shared for discussion purposes.
Hi ST, yes I applaud your efforts to share whatever info you have, my comment wasn't directed at you persoanlly, but rather at the title of your article(s). It said "Global Warming's Twin Evil: Wildfires and Droughts. But it could have just as easily said Geoengineering's Triple Evil :Wildfires, Droughts, and Floods. You see your article already made the ASSUMPTION that the widlfires are being caused by "global warming" and I'm just pointing out that it's just as likely (more so actually IMO) that the constant aerolsol/particulate spreading is having a MAJOR, maybe even a PRIMARY effect of these droughts. So your article isn't necessaily "documenting accelerating climate change" (as is your goal) as it is rather documenting wildfires caused by lack of rain which may be 100% caused by KNOWN methods of stopping rain. So I'm just pointing out this leap of logic. All of your "documentations" seem to be simply "Global warming" ads (and no offense again on your efforts to share, just on the presumtions in your articles). |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Climate Change
Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:17 am
|
|
|
Orwell Knew,
Fair criticism of the article title.
I didn't write the article, but it does document massive flooding in the midwest and an overwhelming number of wildfires in California.
Can you imagine...1,400 fires burning around the state simultaneously?
(And as an aside, just what do you think "extra" metallic particles in the atmosphere would do during a "normal" electrical storm?)
You want to know bad air quality...we've been living in it...big time ! !
This thread is about "Accelerating Climate Change", and I think few would dare argue that this is not happening.
Some have a vested interest (profit motive) in arguing that everything we are seeing is perfectly "natural", just a variation that is part of a "normal" fluctuation, that it's all the sun, or cosmic rays, or whatever, but that the six and a half billion people inhabiting this planet are not in any way responsible for what is happening.
I think such a point of view is childish, irresponsible and completely unsupportable by scientific evidence.
Human activities are having a tremendous impact on global climate change.
Atmospheric modification is one aspect of that change, as is deforestation, urban sprawl, etc.
I don't think we come close to understanding the relative contribution of each of these individual activities on the final result.
Have you happened to glance at the geoengineering thread?
The increasing number of articles would appear to be preparing the populace for this as inevitable.
There are also many who believe that it has already been underway for years. |
| |
|
|
penumbra
Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 672
Location: North Carolina |
| Re: Climate Change
Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:13 am
|
|
|
Hello Sore Throat.
Very interesting info here. it will take me awhile to read the other related threads!!
I just wanted to say that I think you're right in a lot of respects, but I don't think you should underestimate the significance of solar and extra-solar activity are having, not only to our planet, but the entire solar system.
quote:
Originally posted by Sore Throat
Orwell Knew,
Fair criticism of the article title.
I didn't write the article, but it does document massive flooding in the midwest and an overwhelming number of wildfires in California.
Can you imagine...1,400 fires burning around the state simultaneously?
(And as an aside, just what do you think "extra" metallic particles in the atmosphere would do during a "normal" electrical storm?)
You want to know bad air quality...we've been living in it...big time ! !
This thread is about "Accelerating Climate Change", and I think few would dare argue that this is not happening.
Some have a vested interest (profit motive) in arguing that everything we are seeing is perfectly "natural", just a variation that is part of a "normal" fluctuation, that it's all the sun, or cosmic rays, or whatever, but that the six and a half billion people inhabiting this planet are not in any way responsible for what is happening.
I think such a point of view is childish, irresponsible and completely unsupportable by scientific evidence.
Human activities are having a tremendous impact on global climate change.
Atmospheric modification is one aspect of that change, as is deforestation, urban sprawl, etc.
I don't think we come close to understanding the relative contribution of each of these individual activities on the final result.
Have you happened to glance at the geoengineering thread?
The increasing number of articles would appear to be preparing the populace for this as inevitable.
There are also many who believe that it has already been underway for years.
Sorry for the drift... |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 5:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
