What World Under Climate Change

[Tyger]

Some one or group has been thinking long and hard about overpopulation and it's effects.

No doubt many people have been. Ever since the book came out 'Population Bomb: Population Control or Race to Oblivion' by Paul Ehrlich, and before.

Just go and research the Georgia Guidestones.

That's a leap for me. One cannot link 'a group' to the Georgia Guidestones imo - in the sense of being 'in power'.

Reducing the population from 7 billion plus to 500 million is one of the stated goals.

Not that I read. It simply states what 'it' considers the ideal world population: "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." It does not advocate 'reducing the population'.

I agree with the last paragraph in the Wiki entry: "The most widely agreed-upon interpretation of the stones is that they describe the basic concepts required to rebuild a devastated civilization. Brad Meltzer notes that the stones were built in 1979 at the height of the Cold War, and may have been intended as a message to the possible survivors of a World War III. The engraved suggestion to keep humanity's population below 500 million could have been made under the assumption that it had already been reduced below this number." That's the way I read it, too. It has that 'feel'.

I'm pretty sure that means eradicating humans by any means possible.

That's an assumption, not a fact, since the Guidestone inscription does not advocate or spell out any way to get to under 500 million. It just states what 'it' considers to be the ideal world population.

As somebody had the money and means to build this stone monument, it lead me to believe that those in power have some wicked ideas about our future.

Again, two assumptions drawn from the Guidestones, not grounded in fact: somebody can have had the money to put up the stones but not be 'in power'; and assuming that because the stones were set up means those 'in power' have 'wicked ideas about our future' is a leap based on no evidence whatsoever.

I don't worry at all.

I would be worrying if I really thought that 'those in power' have 'wicked ideas about our future' - such as you suggested: 'eradicating humans by any means possible.' I don't believe it, but if I did, I'd be worried.

I just am pointing out someone or some group went to an awful lot of expense to make their beliefs known. Make of it what you will.

It could be just one person. Plenty of eccentric wealthy folk around to do something like that. Or it could be a handful of people who pitched in to erect the edifice - it really doesn't represent that much money. It's not the money that makes it compelling but the mystery. The mind does love a mystery.

Whatever it is, it is not necessarily a blue-print for the future - that's a leap - and I make that leap, too, but recognize that I am making a leap, playing with possibilities. As far as we can state with certainty is that it's just one person or - as it states - a few people deciding to make their wishes known - almost like a 'signal' to us now or others in the future. I would say that's about as far as we can go - and as far as it goes. The mystery makes it compelling and a magnet for all manner of suppositions, none of which can be considered 'true' without solid evidence. Talking of 'those in power' conniving some evil malice goes far beyond the evidence imo.

This thread is about a shifting world under the event of climate change, but it is a time when a great deal of 'world changing' is being talked about, like with the Innuit linked to above. Like this linked to below that recently came into my feed and which I offer here as just one example of that over-arching sense of massive changes afoot. I offer it here not as something I 'believe' only as an example of the layers of thinking circling about. [And in offering this I can feel the shift from science to 'woo'. ]

“We Are Living In The Most Important Time In The History Of The Universe” Dolores Cannon Discusses Our Current Paradigm February 19, 2014 by Jeff Roberts.
LINK: “We Are Living In The Most Important Time In The History Of The Universe” Dolores Cannon Discusses Our Current Paradigm | Collective-Evolution

 

[DaveM]

You have obviously picked my post apart point by point. I still stand by what I said. If you don't think there is evil in world looking to have their way, you haven't been paying attention much in my opinion.

BTW, I do like a good pissing contest like you and pixelsmith seem to share with each other. My question is... who has the biggest bladder?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

BTW, I do like a good pissing contest like you and pixelsmith seem to share with each other. My question is... who has the biggest bladder?

We're in a drought, there's no piss left!

 

[DaveM]

We're in a drought, there's no piss left!

I wonder about that Heidi. There seems to be a never ending flow on this topic!

 

[Tyger]

You have obviously picked my post apart point by point.

It's the 'scientist' in me.

I still stand by what I said.

As do I what I said.

If you don't think there is evil in world looking to have their way, you haven't been paying attention much in my opinion.

Ah, this is a very large topic, not to be addressed here. Maybe a new thread? Interested? I could do that, because it is a very important topic. The belief that there exists an objective evil in the world goes back to the Ancient Persian and Zoroaster, the Bogomils and Cathars. One of those divisive debates from out of the Early Middle Ages eventuating in the Inquisition, assembled to snuff out the Cathars. One 'debate' worthy of a climate change debate these days.

BTW, I do like a good pissing contest like you and pixelsmith seem to share with each other. My question is... who has the biggest bladder?

Thing is, I'm not pissing.

 

[DaveM]

It's the 'scientist' in me.

As do I what I said.

Ah, this is a very large topic, not to be addressed here. Maybe a new thread? Interested? I could do that, because it is a very important topic. The belief that there exists an objective evil in the world goes back to the Ancient Persian and Zoroaster, Bogomils and Cathars and...one of y=those divisive debates from out of the Early Middle Ages eventuating in the Inquisition, assembled to snuff out the Cathars. One 'debate' worthy of a climate change debate these days.

Thing is, I'm not pissing.

That is one subject that we do disagree on.

I do admit to one guilty pleasure. After you and Mr. P write endless reams on global weather change, I like to cut to the end and read all the snarky comments!

 

[Tyger]

There is one subject that we do disagree on.

What is that? The nature of evil? Don't assume. We may be in agreement. Never know.

 

[DaveM]

What is that? The nature of evil? Don't assume. We may be in agreement. Never know.

Sorry I should have been more clear. There is much pissing going on. So we agree to disagree.

 

[Tyger]

I do admit to one guilty pleasure. After you and Mr. P write endless reams on global weather change, I like to cut to the end and read all the snarky comments!

Then I guess I won't be seeing much of you on this thread.

P.S. To clarify: I don't actually write reams - I link to articles of interest that should speak for themselves to the topic of the thread. I copy-and-paste the text because sometimes links break or pages become 'lost' or deleted. By putting in the text, I avert losing the content. Also, generally I bold/highlight the significant themes in the text so that a momentary scan of the text should give the reader the jist of the article. Trying to be helpful.

 

[DaveM]

Then I guess I won't be seeing much of you on this thread.

P.S. To clarify: I don't actually write reams - I link to articles of interest that should speak for themselves to the topic of the thread. I copy-and-paste the text because sometimes links break or pages become 'lost' or deleted. By putting in the text, I avert losing the content. Also, generally I bold/highlight the significant themes in the text so that a momentary scan of the text should give the reader the jist of the article. Trying to be helpful.

You are quite right, I won't be hanging out here from now on. Whether it is writing or cutting and pasting, all the fun seems to be limited to a party of two. Have fun boys.

 

[boomerang]

Maybe a brilliant psychologist will some day explain why the subject of climate change is so inherently incendiary. Climate change threads tend to wind up with a narrative worthy of the satire of Jonathan Swift.

In the big picture, it doesn't matter who said what about climate change. What matters is the data and and how it has been evaluated.

Are the polar caps melting or not? Are sea levels rising or not ? We don't need super computers to give us yes/no answers to such questions.

 

[Tyger]

You are quite right, I won't be hanging out here from now on. Whether it is writing or cutting and pasting, all the fun seems to be limited to a party of two. Have fun boys.

My point was that if the snarky is all you're interested in - a sort of Roman Circus pleasure in the rude and profane - that's not what I do, or what interests me. Anyone is welcome to any thread - of course - agree or not. But I think everyone is also entitled to not being savaged because of what they post or the way they choose to engage (debate or not debate).

Also, there is no 'party of two' here. Not sure what you mean. You also seem to have taken offense, and I'm not sure where the offense happened. Sorry offense was given if you feel it was me..

 

[Tyger]

Maybe a brilliant psychologist will some day explain why the subject of climate change is so inherently incendiary. Climate change threads tend to wind up with a narrative worthy of the satire of Jonathan Swift.

Well, I'm not brilliant, and I'm not a psychologist, but I've read enough on the subject and the closest to an insight that resonates is that climate change - if the science is accepted - means one must change, society must change, even the whole world. It means taking a responsibility for something we did not create as individuals. Perhaps it means giving up the wealth that comes to us through our investments in oil and coal. It's why it's become a point of contention regarding whether it's human caused or not, because if it's just regular old change that happens all the time, we are powerless to effect an outcome, so 'live, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.'

In the big picture, it doesn't matter who said what about climate change. What matters is the data and and how it has been evaluated.

Exactly so. And to think that a group of laypeople arguing the merits of the science will arrive at valid conclusions is ludicrous. They may, but generally laypeople march to the beat of 'talking points' supplied by others, and in the case of climate change, that is happening in spades.

I cannot recommend strongly enough the documentary 'Merchants of Doubt'. Excellent summation of the PR industry's complicity in those 'talking points' on climate, the 'playbook' being used, right down to the sliming of the scientists researching climate change.

Are the polar caps melting or not? Are sea levels rising or not ? We don't need super computers to give us yes/no answers to such questions.

Which is what this thread is about.

 

[Tyger]

Exactly so. And to think that a group of laypeople arguing the merits of the science will arrive at valid conclusions is ludicrous. They may, but generally laypeople march to the beat of 'talking points' supplied by others, and in the case of climate change, that is happening in spades.

Quoting myself. An extreme statement methinks. I overstated, but there is a backstory.

This video is a good summation of key elements regarding science -

- False theories can make true predictions. (The fallacy of affirming the consequent).

- Auxiliary hypotheses.

- A lot of science does not fit the standard ('textbook') model. A lot of science is not deductive but inductive - that is, starts with observation 'of stuff going on out in the world'.

- A lot of science builds a model that tests an idea. Computer simulations are a kind of model built with mathematics. Models/simulations are important for thinking about causes.

- Scientists do a lot of different things, scientists are creative. If scientists don't use a single method, then how do they decide what's right and what's wrong? And who judges? Scientists judge and they judge by judging evidence. Scientists collect evidence in many different ways, and however they collect it, they have to subject it to scrutiny. How do scientists scrutinize evidence? Via 'organized skepticism'. 'Organized' because they do it collectively, as a group, and 'skepticism' because they do it from a position of distrust - to say the burden of proof is on the person with a novel claim. In this, science is intrinsically conservative. It's hard to get the scientific community to say 'yes, we know something, this is true'. Major changes in scientific thinking - paradigm shifts - are relatively rare [sic] in the history of science.

- If scientists judge science collectively, this has led historians to focus on the question of consensus, and to say that - at the end of the day, what science is, what scientific knowledge is, is the consensus of the scientific experts who through this process of 'organized scrutiny', collective scrutiny, have judged the evidence and have come to a conclusion, either yea or nay. Science is a kind of consensus of experts, or as a kind of jury except it's a very special kind of jury that has a number of choices: yes, no, might be true (need more evidence), or might be true but we don't know how to answer the question and we will come back to it later. (That's what scientists call 'intractable').

- One final problem: if science is what scientists say it is, then isn't that just an appeal to authority? Weren't we taught in school that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Here is the paradox of modern science, the paradox of the conclusions that a lot of historians, philosophers and sociologists have come to, that science is the appeal to authority - but it's not the authority of the individual, no matter how smart that individual is, like Plato or Socrates or Einstein - it's the authority of the collective community. You can think of it as the wisdom of the crowd, but a very special kind of crowd. Science does appeal to authority but it is not based on any individual no matter how smart that individual may be. It's based on the collective wisdom, the collective knowledge, the collective work, of all of the scientists that have worked on a particular problem. Scientists have a kind of cultural collective distrust, this 'show me' culture.

- Our basis for trusting science is actually the same for our trusting technology (that our car will work) or our basis for trusting anything - namely, experience. But it shouldn't be blind trust. Our trust in science should be based on evidence. Scientists have to become better communicators, they must be able to explain not just what they know, but how they know it, and it means that 'we' as laypersons have to become better listeners.

Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists

TEXT: "Published on Jun 25, 2014: Many of the world's biggest problems require asking questions of scientists — but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry — and gives her own reasoning for why we ought to trust science."

 

[Tyger]

THE SILENT KILLER:
Extreme heat kills more often than we think, and climate change is only going to turn it up a notch.
LINK: Warning: Heat waves can (and do) kill—and climate change is sending more our way

TEXT: "It's only April and the warm temperatures of 2015 are already grabbing headlines. But I doubt anyone is out there quaking at the prospect of sweltering through another "hottest year ever." You see, as extreme weather events go, heat waves don’t have much flair for the dramatic. Tornadoes leave a violent trail of flattened houses in their wake. Flotillas of kayaks take to the streets during major floods. Even cold waves inspire BuzzFeed listicles showing how boiling water can freeze in midair. But heat waves just…make us sit around and sweat.

Though unassuming, extreme heat is deadly, which is why it’s often referred to as a silent killer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that between 2006 and 2010, heat contributed to 666 deaths per year (hot as hell, indeed). “People have a sense that ‘There’s always been heat waves, what’s the big deal?’ ” says Kim Knowlton, a senior scientist with NRDC’s health and environment program (disclosure). “The big deal is there’s a lot more of them, and they kill people.”

Extreme heat is insidious in more ways than one. Not only does its health impact take people unawares, it’s also not always obvious when heat factors into someone’s death. In the summer of 2003, Europe sweated through its hottest temperatures in 500 years. At the time, it was reported that about 20,000 people had died from the heat—15,000 in France alone. A later epidemiological study that compared the number of people who actually died that summer to the number of expected deaths, however, put the toll closer to 70,000. That’s no minor rounding error.

That so many heat-related deaths can fly under the radar seems remarkable, but the relationship between extreme heat and health is…well, it’s complicated. Heat doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Several environmental conditions beyond the number on the thermometer can interact to worsen peoples’ health.

Air pollution, humidity, and cloud cover all play a role in how a heat event affects public health. Duration matters, too. “You can go to a hot yoga class for about an hour of extremely hot temperatures and emerge from that and you’ll be fine,” says George Luber, who is chief of the climate and health program at the CDC. “But if you extend the exposure to a couple hours or a couple days, it becomes dangerous.”

Heat stroke—and its milder cousins heat exhaustion and heat cramps—is probably the most obvious example of a heat-related illness, and the one most likely to show up on a death certificate. The very young and the very old, who are less able to regulate their body temperature, are particularly susceptible. Extreme heat and its cronies, says Luber, can also make many chronic health problems worse. People with cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal diseases are at greater risk during heat waves, as are people with diabetes and psychiatric conditions.

In order to prevent some of those death certificates in the first place, some health departments around the country are beginning to use syndromic surveillance to collect information in real time. Originally developed to detect bioterrorism outbreaks, syndromic surveillance systems work by probing data from electronic medical records for trends that raise red flags. For instance, if suddenly there is an uptick in local reports of fever, cough, and sore throat, it might be an early indication that flu season is kicking off. During a heat wave, authorities would be on the lookout for a rise in the number of hospital visits from patients complaining of keywords like “sun,” “heat,” and “dehydration.” Such information would let health officials know where to direct resources during a heat event and measure how well preventive steps are working.

Being prepared is key and can be as simple as spreading the word that heat is, in fact, dangerous. Physicians, public health officials, and even weather forecasters can remind people to crank up the AC, hydrate, and check up on loved ones and neighbors—especially those at greater risk—when sweltering days are ahead.

Communities can also open cooling centers to give those without access to air-conditioning a place to chill out. New York City’s Cool Roofs program is painting city rooftops white to reflect sunlight. This can lower temps within a building by 30 percent: Collectively, those pale roofs can reduce the urban heat island effect. Adding more green spaces to cities cools them off, too.

Whatever our strategy, we should get to it, because the prognosis is not good. Climate change has already started to spawn more frequent and intense heat waves. The U.K.’s Met Office predicts that by 2050, the kind of heat Europe saw in 2003 could happen every other year. According to a 2012 report by NRDC, the total number of excessive heat days in the United States will increase to more than eight times the baseline level by the end of the century.

So remember, folks, drink plenty of water and cut those carbon emissions already. Because bringing down the planet’s fever could keep you out of the sickbed, too.​

 

[Tyger]

Soil is more affected by climate change than scientists previously thought
by Michelle Kennedy Hogan, 04/03/15
LINK: Soil is more affected by climate change than scientists previously thought | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

TEXT: "Soil organic matter may be more negatively affected by climate change than scientists previously thought. Plants, which send as much as 60 percent of their photosynthetically fixed carbon to their roots, can be affected by elevated carbon dioxide levels and then release altered secretions into the soil.

Lawrence Livermore scientists and colleagues said in the March 30 edition of Nature Climate Change that oxalic acid—a “common root secretion”—promotes the loss of carbon in the soil through the freeing of organic compounds from their associations with minerals.​

Priming, the term for a “short-term” increase in microbial mineralization of soil carbon, can account for the loss of root secretion-induced soil carbon. Other studies have pointed to climate change as the reason for enhanced root secretions into soils of organic compounds. But recent studies show that increased root discharge may cause a loss of overall soil carbon.

“Our results provide new insights into the coupled biotic-abiotic mechanisms underlying the ‘priming’ phenomenon and challenge the assumption that mineral-associated carbon is protected from microbial cycling over millennial timescales,” said Jennifer Pett-Ridge, an LLNL scientist and co-author of the paper.

Pett-Ridge also mentioned that if root secretion rates continue to respond to climate change, as the scientists predict, the altered CO2 levels could increase metal and organic matter in the rooting zone, altering the soil."​

 

[Tyger]

Climate change threatens more than two-thirds of rabbit species - April 16 2015
LINK: Climate change threatens more than two-thirds of rabbit species

TEXT: "Climate change will have major effects on the ecology and distribution of many animal species. Now new research suggests that rabbits will be particularly hard hit as climatic changes alter their habitat over the coming decades. Rabbits, hares and pikas could become this century’s new climate migrants – with up to two-thirds of species forced to relocate. There are almost certainly going to be extinctions among some of the more sensitive and less adaptable species.

Rabbits and their relatives hares (referred to in North America as jackrabbits) and the lesser known pikas belong to a group of mammals known as lagomorphs – of which there are 87 species worldwide. Lagomorphs are particularly interesting to ecologists – and those of my colleagues who work in Global Food Security – as they are a major human food resource, valued game species, agricultural pests, model lab animals and key elements in food webs. You can find rabbits, hares and pikas almost everywhere, across a huge range of environmental conditions. They’re native to all continents except Antarctica, found from the equator to the Arctic, and from sea level to the very top of the Himalayas.

A quarter of lagomorphs are already listed as threatened, and 13 species are endangered or critically endangered. We were particularly interested in how predicted changes in climate would affect this already highly vulnerable group. In our study, colleagues from Queen’s University Belfast and I collated all known records of lagomorph species worldwide. Environmental conditions such as temperature or rainfall were correlated with the sites where each species occurred to establish the suitable habitat within which each can persist. Widely accepted climate models of projected future conditions were then used to extrapolate how suitable habitat would change.

The results, published in the open access scientific journal PLOS ONE suggest that two-thirds of all lagomorph species will be affected. Rabbits, hares and jackrabbits are likely to shift towards the poles with little change in the total size of their range – the geographical area in which the species can be found. Pikas meanwhile, are likely to shift to ever higher altitudes as the lower slopes warm up leading to huge range declines. This is likely to lead to the extinction of some such as Kozlov’s Pika Ochotona koslowi, a mysterious species unique to China.

Of course the animals won’t just remain still while the climate changes around them – moving towards the poles or to higher ground is a standard strategy to track shifts in suitable habitat. Rabbits, hares and jackrabbits can move long distances and can potentially move to cooler conditions without losing too much of their range; the effects of such shifts on ecosystems are largely unknown but likely to cause significant disruption.

The smaller and less bouncy pikas won’t be so lucky. Pikas inhabit generally cooler conditions in the high mountains of the Himalayas or Rockies and will be driven further upwards until no suitable habitat remains. My colleague Neil Reid, a conservation biologist and lagomorph expert at Queen’s, points out that “they will likely be pushed off the top of the mountains, literally, with total extinction the most probable outcome”.

Species traits can be useful indicators of potential responses to climate change, yet have rarely been linked to changes in distributions. Smaller-bodied species were more likely to exhibit range contractions and shifts to higher ground, but species capable of having large numbers of offspring were more likely to shift towards the poles.

The effect of climate change on lagomorphs is predicted to be so substantial that almost a third of the Earth’s land area (31.5 million km2) will lose at least one species by 2100. It is predicted that northern China will lose up to ten species, whereas Montana and North Dakota in North America are likely to gain up to five species – climate rabbit refugees perhaps, fleeing the ever-warming southern states and Mexico. Generally, species on islands and mountains will be the hardest hit by changing temperatures.

However predictive models are simplified versions of reality and as such are rough approximations of what seems likely to happen. Those we used did not account for the complexity of ecological systems, such as how species – like plants or predators – interact with lagomorphs.

Moreover, small burrowing species such as the Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis may be able to shelter from the effects of climate change, while larger species like the European hare Lepus europaeus may have to adapt to mitigate the effects of warming temperatures – for example in the way that the Antelope jackrabbit Lepus alleni uses its long ears to shed excess heat. So we have to be careful in the interpretation of our models – but the consistency of the results across all lagomorph species does not paint a good picture of the future for the group.

Conservation strategies, such as assisted migration – where humans deliberately move species to areas of more suitable conditions, pre-empting future changes – may be one of the few options to save highly range-restricted species, even if it is highly controversial. Collection of more species records, particularly for already rare species, as well as targeting data-deficient geographic regions (such as Russia) will be vital in increasing our knowledge of the most threatened lagomorphs and informing future conservation management."​

 

[Tyger]

Some speculation. Interesting. No idea if it's accurate.

How Much Room Do We Need To Supply The Entire World With Solar Electricity?
June 24, 2014 | by Lisa Winter
LINK: How Much Room Do We Need To Supply The Entire World With Solar Electricity? | IFLScience

TEXT:

photo credit: Nadine May

In 2009, the total global electricity consumption was 20,279,640 GWh. The sun creates more energy than that in one hour. The tricky part is collecting that energy and converting it into useful electricity with solar panels. How much area would need to be covered with solar panels in order to capture enough energy to meet global demand? Actually, it’s not as much as you’d think.

The image above has three red boxes showing what area would need to be covered for Germany (De), Europe (EU-25), and the entire world.

So what are we waiting for? Let’s start getting more solar panels on some rooftops and start chipping away at those boxes!

 

[Tyger]

Ocean Acidification: History Suggests it Could Kill Us All by Kevin Mathews April 11, 2015
LINK: Ocean Acidification History Suggests it Could Kill Us All | Care2 Causes

TEXT: "If you pay attention to the environment, by now you’ve probably heard about ocean acidification, but it’s probably too abstract to understand completely. What’s the big deal about carbon being absorbed into the oceans anyway? To answer that question, scientists at the University of Edinburgh studied a previous period of intense ocean acidification and found that it coincided with the most lethal mass extinction in the history of the world.

"The acidification-related extinction was no joke: 90 percent of marine species were eliminated entirely. The ripple effect harmed land animals, as well, causing approximately two-thirds of existing land species to go extinct. Essentially no ecosystem went undisturbed during the 10,000 year period of acidification.

"Researchers have known about this mass die-off for a long time, but only recently could link it to ocean acidification after finding rocks in the United Arab Emirates that demonstrated oceanic changes from millions of years ago.

"The acidification transpired because of mass releases of carbon, though, obviously, humans were not to blame at this point. Instead, successions of volcano eruptions let loose lots of carbon dioxide which wound up in the oceans. The rate at which he carbon was released from the volcanoes is roughly equivalent to the carbon humans are releasing from burning fossil fuels, so there’s definitely reason to fear similar consequences, volcanoes or not.

"It’s important to note that just because ocean acidification has happened before doesn’t make it a common event. The acidification that scientists discovered occurred 252 million years ago, and clearly had catastrophic consequences for life on the planet. The fact that humans are prompting this major oceanic change even though it’s preventable is perhaps more alarming.

"Based on information from 252 million years ago, it’s hard to say whether this new round of ocean acidification will be as deadly for life on the planet. As the oceans slowly acidify, however, we are seeing how it can negatively impact marine life in general. We’d be foolish to think that we’ll go unscathed, yet the United States has done next to nothing to address this mounting problem.

"Although there’s no easy solution for ocean acidification, if you want to at least try to do your part to combat the issue, see Care2’s article “How Your Community Can Fight Ocean Acidification.” "​

 

[Tyger]

SOTT Summary - January 2015

TEXT: "Published on Feb 8, 2015: The following video compiles footage of 'signs of the times' from around the world during January 2015 - 'earth changes', extreme weather, meteor fireballs, and planetary upheaval.

"Phenomenal amounts of snow were dumped in the Northeastern and Southern US, Western and Southeastern Europe, the Middle East, Western China, and Far Eastern Russia. Saudi Arabia and the Southwestern US desert were hit with snow for the third year running. The US media has apparently dropped the term 'Polar Vortex' because Arctic conditions extending all the way to the Gulf of Mexico is now 'normal'. The one place where you might expect a lot of snow this time of year - Moscow - instead enjoyed its warmest January in 100 years.

"The Great Lakes in North America aren't as frozen over as they were this time last year, but those 'ice boulders' returned to Michigan in January, and the Niagara Falls have again partially frozen. Up to half a million people were affected by the worst flooding Southeastern Africa has seen for decades. The Balkans were flooded for the 5th time in 20 months, and barely two months on from receiving 70cm of rain in one day, Sicily was hit with a similar quantity of hail. Among the spectacular meteor fireball sightings in January were a comet fragment breaking apart over the Russian Far East, and a fireball that turned night into day in Bucharest, Romania.

" 'Mystery booms' continue to freak people (and animals) out across the US. We suspect that some of them are shockwaves from overhead meteor explosions, but others occur in clusters and are picked up by seismometers (despite there being no known fault-lines), so we are probably looking at general and unusual seismic activity resulting from the slow-down in the planet's rotation. This would also be responsible for all these volcanic eruptions, of which there were more spectacular ones in January. 'Earth opening up' also saw sinkholes swallow moving cars in Florida and Maryland.

"As you watch this video summary of events in January, keep in mind that we had to leave out so many other unusual events because they're now part of 'the new normal'!"


SOTT Summary February 2015 - Extreme Weather, Earth Changes, and Fireballs

TEXT: "Published on Mar 8, 2015: The following video compiles footage of 'signs of the times' from around the world during February 2015 - 'earth changes', extreme weather, meteor fireballs, and planetary upheaval.

"The pattern of global deluges continued last month as flooding again hit the Balkans, Greece, Bolivia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Northwest, Australia, and East Africa. February saw 'orange' snow, 'blue' snow and 'dirty rain' as particulates from ever more erupting volcanoes and incoming meteors continue to build up in the atmosphere. It's not just conditions above ground that are changing: alarming numbers of whales, sea lions and other sea creatures continue to wash up dead or dying on beaches around the world.

"February saw meteor fireballs ranging from flashes that momentarily turned night into day over New Zealand, Florida and Korea... to a long-duration bolide of comet/asteroid size that broke up over the western half of North America. There were several major train derailments in February, particularly in the U.S., where oil companies are bypassing pipeline networks to transport fracked oil. We suspect that many railway lines are deforming due to the increased seismic activity.

"More loud booms were heard and felt across the U.S. in February. Although attributed to 'frost quakes', where water seeps into the ground then freezes and cracks the bedrock, these localized booms also happened in ice-free regions, suggesting that some other mechanism is causing them. Besides strong earthquakes off Japan and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, an unusually strong quake in central Spain sent people running into the streets. Japan saw more snow records broken, wild weather continued to pummel the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East was again snowed under.

"THE major weather event in February 2015 was the record snow and cold in the U.S. Northeast. The South and Midwest were also hit hard, but the Northeast appears to have had both its snowiest and coldest month ever, at least since since record-keeping began in the mid-19th century. Meteorologists attributed this to the meandering Polar Jet stream delivering a 'Siberian Express' of non-stop winter storms from the northern Pacific down and across the North American continent, but another factor could be super-cool air coming down from the troposphere."