Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


[envr] The Pentagon's Apocalyptic Climate-Change Planning
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 481
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    (ENVR) Canadian Gov Says Climate Change

    An announcement on CNN says a Canadian Gov Minister has released a statement saying global warming poses a much larger, long term danger than terrorists -

    that could cause hundreds of millions to lose their homes and cause an unprecedented financial catastrophe.

    That says to me, that they are VERY SERIOUSLY concerned about the North Atlantic water pump screwing up and causing an ice age.

    AND SOON.

    Just by coincedence (or not, maybe this "announcement" and my current postings account for my recent sleeplessness).

    See these current posts of mine:

    http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...threadid=91024

  2. #2
    An announcement on CNN says a Canadian Gov Minister has released a statement saying global warming poses a much larger, long term danger than terrorists -
    Let's see....the *Liberal* Canadian Government is making a statement that global warming poses a much larger, longer threat or danger than terrorist? Doesn't it seem to be a timely pre-US election stunt aimed at the current administration and hoping to give a little support to our *Liberal* Dems?....

    I mean if Canada just wanted to make the statement that global warming is a threat..that would be enough for me to want to see why...but when they throw in the *larger* and *longer* and *than Terrorists* comments....it screams rhetoric........

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    And

    in one of those cute acts of synchronicity, I called up this to read, and found the following on Urban Survival:

    Cold Barn

    Although it's not really a barn, Elaine & I are still living in our big shop area in the outbuilding, where a couple of hard-working heaters manage a 20-30 degree temperature differential with outside. With 27 this morning, that means we work up to a brisk 55 this morning. A lot of readers are sending us articles about how the cold snap is unseasonable and how there really may be a new ice age forming. A bunch of reading at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040127/D80B46LO0.html Climate change snips include:

    "Central O'ahu residents see twister take form

    Maj. Joe Mecadon, a 47-year-old Air Force officer, witnessed it from start to finish. Mecadon said he saw the tornado begin to take shape as a funnel cloud at about 1:35 p.m., approximately one mile northwest of Royal Kunia.

    "It wasn't like a powerful Texas twister, but it touched down in some pineapple fields near Kunia Road," said Mecadon, a former Texas resident who grabbed his camera the moment the tornado started to form.

    Mecadon said the tornado connected to the ground from its cloud base for about four minutes. He estimated the tornado was between 1,000 feet and 1,400 feet in length. "

    and

    "Addendum to the Woods Hole link sent earlier. Implications for commodities anyone?

    "The ocean level appears to be rising, causing problems of coastal flooding, aquifer intrusion, and disappearance of presently inhabited islands. Sea level rise is caused by:

    Depletion of aquifers. Ground water, which may have been stored since ancient times, is pumped out for irrigation, drinking, household, and industrial uses (for example, power plant cooling). Used water finds its way to the sea via run off, or by precipitation of evaporated and transpired water. Expansion of ocean water, whose temperature appears to be increasing. Melting of land-supported ice, and calving of icebergs from glaciers. Production of continental snow and ice is not keeping pace with the melting and calving.

    At the present time, the Gulf Stream is feeding too much warm tropical water into the North Atlantic Current for delivery to the Norwegian Sea and other seas bordering the Arctic Ocean. This incoming warm surface water is cooled by the floating ice and sinks to the bottom. Most of this cold bottom water exits the Arctic Ocean and surrounding seas via three paths [Ref. 4]: "

    And it's only warming up to the 50's today...ugh! The good news is that the insurance company has already paid off on the property so we now own the whole spread free and clear - after all the paperwork settles - and all we need to do is rebuild the house... Not exactly what we had in mind but from a net worth perspective it didn't hurt.

  4. #4
    It looks like the Pentagon may be taking this seriously, too. Yep, terrorism would be a minor problem if this is what is really occurring. The following link is to a article about the Pentagon's concern. It's long, three pages, so I won't past it in here. It's title is: CLIMATE COLLAPSE
    The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare... it's an interesting read.

    http://www.fortune.com/fortune/techn...2584-1,00.html

    Edited to add: I note that this link is included in dragonslayer's earlier postings...
    Last edited by don24mac; 02-09-2004 at 08:11 AM.

  5. #5

    [envr] The Pentagon's Apocalyptic Climate-Change Planning

    A little something in here for all our end-of-the-world visionaries.

    Got preps? Especially parkas?

    http://www.fortune.com/fortune/techn...2584-1,00.html

    CLIMATE COLLAPSE
    The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare

    The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues.
    By David Stipp


    Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.

    The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade—like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies—thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.

    Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia—it's easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.

    Climate researchers began getting seriously concerned about it a decade ago, after studying temperature indicators embedded in ancient layers of Arctic ice. The data show that a number of dramatic shifts in average temperature took place in the past with shocking speed—in some cases, just a few years.

    The case for angst was buttressed by a theory regarded as the most likely explanation for the abrupt changes. The eastern U.S. and northern Europe, it seems, are warmed by a huge Atlantic Ocean current that flows north from the tropics—that's why Britain, at Labrador's latitude, is relatively temperate. Pumping out warm, moist air, this "great conveyor" current gets cooler and denser as it moves north. That causes the current to sink in the North Atlantic, where it heads south again in the ocean depths. The sinking process draws more water from the south, keeping the roughly circular current on the go.

    But when the climate warms, according to the theory, fresh water from melting Arctic glaciers flows into the North Atlantic, lowering the current's salinity—and its density and tendency to sink. A warmer climate also increases rainfall and runoff into the current, further lowering its saltiness. As a result, the conveyor loses its main motive force and can rapidly collapse, turning off the huge heat pump and altering the climate over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

    Scientists aren't sure what caused the warming that triggered such collapses in the remote past. (Clearly it wasn't humans and their factories.) But the data from Arctic ice and other sources suggest the atmospheric changes that preceded earlier collapses were dismayingly similar to today's global warming. As the Ice Age began drawing to a close about 13,000 years ago, for example, temperatures in Greenland rose to levels near those of recent decades. Then they abruptly plunged as the conveyor apparently shut down, ushering in the "Younger Dryas" period, a 1,300-year reversion to ice-age conditions. (A dryas is an Arctic flower that flourished in Europe at the time.)

    Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may be shaping up today probably has more to do with us. In 2001 an international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities—mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes. A few years ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or grandkids. Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not conveniently wait until we're history.

    Accordingly, the spotlight in climate research is shifting from gradual to rapid change. In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report concluding that human activities could trigger abrupt change. Last year the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, included a session at which Robert Gagosian, director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, urged policymakers to consider the implications of possible abrupt climate change within two decades.

    Such jeremiads are beginning to reverberate more widely. Billionaire Gary Comer, founder of Lands' End, has adopted abrupt climate change as a philanthropic cause. Hollywood has also discovered the issue—next summer 20th Century Fox is expected to release The Day After Tomorrow, a big-budget disaster movie starring Dennis Quaid as a scientist trying to save the world from an ice age precipitated by global warming.

    Fox's flick will doubtless be apocalyptically edifying. But what would abrupt climate change really be like?

    Scientists generally refuse to say much about that, citing a data deficit. But recently, renowned Department of Defense planner Andrew Marshall sponsored a groundbreaking effort to come to grips with the question. A Pentagon legend, Marshall, 82, is known as the Defense Department's "Yoda"—a balding, bespectacled sage whose pronouncements on looming risks have long had an outsized influence on defense policy. Since 1973 he has headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to national security. The Department of Defense's push on ballistic-missile defense is known as his brainchild. Three years ago Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld picked him to lead a sweeping review on military "transformation," the shift toward nimble forces and smart weapons.

    When scientists' work on abrupt climate change popped onto his radar screen, Marshall tapped another eminent visionary, Peter Schwartz, to write a report on the national-security implications of the threat. Schwartz formerly headed planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group and has since consulted with organizations ranging from the CIA to DreamWorks—he helped create futuristic scenarios for Steven Spielberg's film Minority Report. Schwartz and co-author Doug Randall at the Monitor Group's Global Business Network, a scenario-planning think tank in Emeryville, Calif., contacted top climate experts and pushed them to talk about what-ifs that they usually shy away from—at least in public.

    The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn't pretend to be a forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help planners think about coping strategies. Here is an abridged version:

    A total shutdown of the ocean conveyor might lead to a big chill like the Younger Dryas, when icebergs appeared as far south as the coast of Portugal. Or the conveyor might only temporarily slow down, potentially causing an era like the "Little Ice Age," a time of hard winters, violent storms, and droughts between 1300 and 1850. That period's weather extremes caused horrific famines, but it was mild compared with the Younger Dryas.

    For planning purposes, it makes sense to focus on a midrange case of abrupt change. A century of cold, dry, windy weather across the Northern Hemisphere that suddenly came on 8,200 years ago fits the bill—its severity fell between that of the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The event is thought to have been triggered by a conveyor collapse after a time of rising temperatures not unlike today's global warming. Suppose it recurred, beginning in 2010. Here are some of the things that might happen by 2020:

    At first the changes are easily mistaken for normal weather variation—allowing skeptics to dismiss them as a "blip" of little importance and leaving policymakers and the public paralyzed with uncertainty. But by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is happening. The average temperature has fallen by up to five degrees Fahrenheit in some regions of North America and Asia and up to six degrees in parts of Europe. (By comparison, the average temperature over the North Atlantic during the last ice age was ten to 15 degrees lower than it is today.) Massive droughts have begun in key agricultural regions. The average annual rainfall has dropped by nearly 30% in northern Europe, and its climate has become more like Siberia's.

    Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on its way to collapse. A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands, making coastal cities such as the Hague unlivable. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

    Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.

    Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

    Europe, hardest hit by its temperature drop, struggles to deal with immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa and elsewhere. But Western Europe's wealth helps buffer it from catastrophe.

    Australia's size and resources help it cope, as does its location—the conveyor shutdown mainly affects the Northern Hemisphere. Japan has fewer resources but is able to draw on its social cohesion to cope—its government is able to induce population-wide behavior changes to conserve resources.

    China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. It is hit by increasingly unpredictable monsoon rains, which cause devastating floods in drought-denuded areas. Other parts of Asia and East Africa are similarly stressed. Much of Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates inland water supplies. Countries whose diversity already produces conflict, such as India and Indonesia, are hard-pressed to maintain internal order while coping with the unfolding changes.

    As the decade progresses, pressures to act become irresistible—history shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding, they raid. Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations, invading Russia—which is weakened by a population that is already in decline—for access to its minerals and energy supplies. Or picture Japan eyeing nearby Russian oil and gas reserves to power desalination plants and energy-intensive farming. Envision nuclear-armed Pakistan, India, and China skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Or Spain and Portugal fighting over fishing rights—fisheries are disrupted around the world as water temperatures change, causing fish to migrate to new habitats.

    Growing tensions engender novel alliances. Canada joins fortress America in a North American bloc. (Alternatively, Canada may seek to keep its abundant hydropower for itself, straining its ties with the energy-hungry U.S.) North and South Korea align to create a technically savvy, nuclear-armed entity. Europe forms a truly unified bloc to curb its immigration problems and protect against aggressors. Russia, threatened by impoverished neighbors in dire straits, may join the European bloc.

    Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Oil supplies are stretched thin as climate cooling drives up demand. Many countries seek to shore up their energy supplies with nuclear energy, accelerating nuclear proliferation. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. Israel, China, India, and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

    The changes relentlessly hammer the world's "carrying capacity"—the natural resources, social organizations, and economic networks that support the population. Technological progress and market forces, which have long helped boost Earth's carrying capacity, can do little to offset the crisis—it is too widespread and unfolds too fast.

    As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies. As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.

    Over the past decade, data have accumulated suggesting that the plausibility of abrupt climate change is higher than most of the scientific community, and perhaps all of the political community, are prepared to accept. In light of such findings, we should be asking when abrupt change will happen, what the impacts will be, and how we can prepare—not whether it will really happen. In fact, the climate record suggests that abrupt change is inevitable at some point, regardless of human activity. Among other things, we should:

    • Speed research on the forces that can trigger abrupt climate change, how it unfolds, and how we'll know it's occurring.

    • Sponsor studies on the scenarios that might play out, including ecological, social, economic, and political fallout on key food-producing regions.

    • Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food and water and to ensure our national security.

    • Form teams to prepare responses to possible massive migration, and food and water shortages.

    • Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling—today it appears easier to warm than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be "geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic temperature drop.

    In sum, the risk of abrupt climate change remains uncertain, and it is quite possibly small. But given its dire consequences, it should be elevated beyond a scientific debate. Action now matters, because we may be able to reduce its likelihood of happening, and we can certainly be better prepared if it does. It is time to recognize it as a national security concern.

    The Pentagon's reaction to this sobering report isn't known—in keeping with his reputation for reticence, Andy Marshall declined to be interviewed. But the fact that he's concerned may signal a sea change in the debate about global warming. At least some federal thought leaders may be starting to perceive climate change less as a political annoyance and more as an issue demanding action.

    If so, the case for acting now to address climate change, long a hard sell in Washington, may be gaining influential support, if only behind the scenes. Policymakers may even be emboldened to take steps such as tightening fuel-economy standards for new passenger vehicles, a measure that would simultaneously lower emissions of greenhouse gases, reduce America's perilous reliance on OPEC oil, cut its trade deficit, and put money in consumers' pockets. Oh, yes—and give the Pentagon's fretful Yoda a little less to worry about.

    Safecastle's Preparedness Buyers Club www.safecastle.com
    Deep thinkers dig their bunkers. Got shelter? http://www.safecastle.com/sheltershome.aspx
    Like Us on Facebook

  6. #6
    Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations, invading Russia—which is weakened by a population that is already in decline—for access to its minerals and energy supplies

    Huh! Russia is going to be under 10' of ice!

    What is not mentioned is a scheme to route warm Pacific water through a Big Ditch across the isthmus of Panama to run warm water into the Atlantic and keep the Gulf Stream moving.

    I have no idea who proposed it, or if he has the faintest idea what he is talking about.

    There seems to be some evidence that the last ice age hit in maybe a five year period, it was not gradual, it hit like a ton of bricks.

    One more damned thing to worry about.

    Policymakers may even be emboldened to take steps such as tightening fuel-economy standards for new passenger vehicles, a measure that would simultaneously lower emissions of greenhouse gases, reduce America's perilous reliance on OPEC oil, cut its trade deficit, and put money in consumers' pockets

    No matter is decided, it will not be acceptable unless it forces the masses to live frugally.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    In CLE again
    Posts
    57,398
    this one has been dupicated about 5 times now.

    Search "climate change" or "climate collapse"


    PLUS the fact that they REALLY need to get their stories straight....


    25 years ago it was global cooling, 10 years ago it was global warming......Now it is global cooling again......


    C

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    723
    ya so expose? my gov thinks that global warming is very
    important....so do I and alot of people. and yes in the long
    run it is more important than terrorism. since it will be kinda
    hard for people to live if the planet can't support us. ps
    I highly doubt they made the announcement in hopes
    of effecting your election.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mountainous West
    Posts
    4,667
    Give Al Gore a call.

    He'll know who is right, who is wrong, and what to do about it.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Central Ark.
    Posts
    3,933
    I find it interesting how right wing conservatives react to anything about enviromental problems. Anything that might suggest that continued total dependance on crude oil might need to be decreased, is treated like an obvious Commie plot.
    If they are right about the effects of global warming, then it is already too late to stop the sudden climate changes. It will be a hollow "I told you so" for the people that have been trying to get people to take the enviromental issues seriously for all these years. IMHO the human race badly needs culling of it's collective "dead wood", and go back to the strong genes suriving and reproducing anyway. Climate change beats nuclear war for this.

  11. #11
    Sorry for the dupe ... I searched "Fortune" and it came up empty.

    Now, under "Climate Collapse" I found a thread from DragonSlayer2001 entitled "Candian Govt. ..." that included a link to another thread with a partial paste of the article.

    Again ... apologies ... but it's a good article and needs to be seen in its entirety with its own thread title, I think. Feel free to combine threads if need be.

    Safecastle's Preparedness Buyers Club www.safecastle.com
    Deep thinkers dig their bunkers. Got shelter? http://www.safecastle.com/sheltershome.aspx
    Like Us on Facebook

  12. #12
    OB--not sure where the right-wing conservative commie plot thing arose from, but it seems that the Canadian government would need to put this on their political radar screen, "just in case" this does occur. If the climate in the N. Hemisphere was to get significantly colder, Canada would obviously need to be well-prepped in advance.

    That's where I see the pentagon planning story as well--a case of normal contingency planning. No one is ready to say with any certainty that this climate change is going to happen. But to be "war-gaming" the scenario and have some thoughts on what could happen geo-politically, well, that's the pentagon's mission. They are apolitical, so their main concern in raising the issue is not at this point about alternative energy sources--though that might play a part in their solution planning. Moreover, certainly oil interests would be a big factor in their military planning.

    Now, what the govt's other policy wonks decide to do with the issue is going to be more politically motivated. It will be interesting to see over the next several years whether circumstances and scientific opinion start to coalesce into real action planning. And how international relations are affected.

    Safecastle's Preparedness Buyers Club www.safecastle.com
    Deep thinkers dig their bunkers. Got shelter? http://www.safecastle.com/sheltershome.aspx
    Like Us on Facebook

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    30 miles south of Texarkana, Texas
    Posts
    22,882
    Which of these two makes you more dead? Being blown up or shot by a terrorist? Or being frozen to death by climate change?

    How long will this climate change take to really start to affect us adversely? Decades? Centuries? Why worry about freezing to death 10 years from now when some raghead terrorist is trying to kill me now? Because if he succedes with killing me now; then freezing to death years from now becomes a 'dead' issue...literally.
    You say "trigger-happy cowboy" as if it were a bad thing.

    "If they come a'huntin' me; they can consider themselves lucky if they*don't* find me!"

    No surrender; no retreat!

    If we fight, victory is not certain. If we do not fight, defeat surely is.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Massachusetts
    Posts
    744
    Catastrophic climate change has happened in the past. Why then? Why now? I have trouble with the popular theory of global warming. Man's use of oil is a very small blip in the world's existence. Man did not cause the "ice age", why are we guilty now?

    Could the "ozone hole" and global warming be linked? Could the culprit be other than man? How about solar flares and radiation bombarding the earth?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    2,962
    Just some questions to think about?

    What would happen if Global Warming does suddenly occur?

    With most of the time us Two Leggeds chasing after the Gods
    of the Flesh and refusing to live in Balance and Harmony ....
    What would occur if the Polar Ice Caps did suddenly Melt
    with flooding so many of the major cities around the world
    which are located near or on ocean coastlines?

    Could this then cause enough havoic which us Two Leggeds
    and our so called "Civilization", that our Civilization would
    collapse and never recover again?

    Whatever which way it occurs ... rather by Global Warming
    and flooding, WWIII, The battle with Terrorism, or whatever
    .... to me personally we Two Leggeds are heading to our
    destruction and it seems that we cannot get to this point
    fast enough. How much do we Two Leggeds need to return
    to living a Life in Balance and Harmony before it is toooo late!

    May The Creator Have Mercy On Us Wayward Two Leggeds!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    SW Va. in da mountains
    Posts
    1,658
    Old Bear, Do you believe that you will be among the unculled? Just curious??....

  17. #17
    The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.

    Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems.


    Here's the part of the hypothesis that for me was most telling ... and I would think, at least insofar as this article goes, most pleasing to many here. That there ARE scenarios and presumably plans out there whereby we WOULD literally close the borders. What goes unsaid here though, would be the attendant stenthening within of the police state environment that would become necessary. Fortress America indeed.

    Safecastle's Preparedness Buyers Club www.safecastle.com
    Deep thinkers dig their bunkers. Got shelter? http://www.safecastle.com/sheltershome.aspx
    Like Us on Facebook

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Here is the gist of it

    First, I am NOT saying this is going to occur.

    Second, I DO feel that major changes are taking place around the solar system, therefore ANY massive, epoch making, migration forming change could take place, at any time. Any time.

    Third, you will read about changes taking place in as little as "a couple of years" - actually, recent evidence, in the last few years has showed that on certain occassions this kind of massive change HAS TAKEN PLACE IN AS LITTLE AS A FEW MONTHS - which is what prompted Strieber and Bell to write The Coming Global Superstorm, which was in part the basis for The Day After Tomorrow.

    Fourth, evidence abounds that 12,000 years ago, when this happened, huge mammoths were quick frozen, in as little as 4 hours (max).

    Fifth. I consider that our rapid invasion of Iraq, our shifting of military assets not only away from the US cities and bases but OUT of the country, the largest call up of military force since WWII, for some reason OTHER than terrorists, who so far have proven to be a one trick pony.

    Now, years ago, I stood in a bookstore in San Jose, and read an interesting book written by a guy who investigated conspiracy theories. It was well written, not shrill at all, and the guy took everything with a grain of salt. The one he said fascinated him the most was a letter from someone purporting to be from a Jesuit Priest in the Vatican. The author said that the guy most defintely had priest training. The gist of what the priest was "confiding" to the author was that the reason that the Northern Hemisphere was being polluted and raped was that the major western governments knew or were sure that an Ice Age was immenint (within 20-30 years), and that why worry about the environment when 80% of the land would soon be encased in ice for 10,000 years.

    The priest was saying that Aids was developed and released to kill off and decimate the dark races near and south of the Equator so that the northern, white races could more easily take over when the time came. And that was the reason the priest was contacting the author, that his sould was killing him.

    Now, aids is very slow. Supposedly it IS killing hundreds of millions in Asia, Africa, South America. But oh so slowly. Hence, my post about 75% mortality. IF there was an overriding reason, whatever that may be, that massive changes were to take place, that would adversely affect North America, it IS NOT beyond reason to think that certain of TPTB and portions of the military, of the US and Russia, and others, would loose a virus to decimate mankind.

    Canada and the US supply a major portion of the food supply surplus for the planet. IF both were to become useless due to massive climate changes, billions would die anyway.

    Please note the following part of the statement that was read on the radio last night "that would cause hundreds of millions to lose their homes".

    I mean, it doesn't get any plainer than that, except to the braindead or the totally unimaginative, or those is massive denial.

    That means mass migration. Of entire Nations.

    As for terrorists trying to kill me right now? At the moment, and based on the last 2 years military action, I don't see any terrorist that has a snowball's chance in hell of hurting me or my family. Just a so far baseless threat.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Pentagon

    I don't read this as just another contingency plan. I read quite some time ago (10 yrs) that Aids was released to kill off hundreds of millions due to a coming Ice Age. Over 25 years ago I remember the "Club of Rome" saying that massive climate change was quite possibly coming.

    Now, military contingency plans could have been made 25 years ago based on projected theories of what "might" happen.

    If however, the North Atlantic pump is currently failing, then military planning WILL move beyond the continegency phase to one of conquest and control. Which certainly fits the bill of what is happening right now more so than a handful of terrorists whoose asses we just keep kicking.
    .................................................. .........................................

    Total Climate Collapse -
    The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
    By David Stipp
    Fortune.com
    2-8-4


    The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues.

    Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though,

    the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real

    that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.

    The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold.

    But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future.

    If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societiesóthereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.

    Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russiaóit's easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.

    Climate researchers began getting seriously concerned about it a decade ago, after studying temperature indicators embedded in ancient layers of Arctic ice.

    The data show that a number of dramatic shifts in average temperature took place in the past with shocking speedóin some cases, just a few years.

    The case for angst was buttressed by a theory regarded as the most likely explanation for the abrupt changes. The eastern U.S. and northern Europe, it seems, are warmed by a huge Atlantic Ocean current that flows north from the tropicsóthat's why Britain, at Labrador's latitude, is relatively temperate. Pumping out warm, moist air, this "great conveyor" current gets cooler and denser as it moves north. That causes the current to sink in the North Atlantic, where it heads south again in the ocean depths. The sinking process draws more water from the south, keeping the roughly circular current on the go.

    But when the climate warms, according to the theory, fresh water from melting Arctic glaciers flows into the North Atlantic, lowering the current's salinityóand its density and tendency to sink. A warmer climate also increases rainfall and runoff into the current, further lowering its saltiness. As a result, the conveyor loses its main motive force and can rapidly collapse, turning off the huge heat pump and altering the climate over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

    Scientists aren't sure what caused the warming that triggered such collapses in the remote past. (Clearly it wasn't humans and their factories.) But the data from Arctic ice and other sources suggest the atmospheric changes that preceded earlier collapses were dismayingly similar to today's global warming. As the Ice Age began drawing to a close about 13,000 years ago, for example, temperatures in Greenland rose to levels near those of recent decades. Then they abruptly plunged as the conveyor apparently shut down, ushering in the "Younger Dryas" period, a 1,300-year reversion to ice-age conditions. (A dryas is an Arctic flower that flourished in Europe at the time.)

    Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may be shaping up today probably has more to do with us. In 2001 an international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activitiesómainly the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes. A few years ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or grandkids. Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not conveniently wait until we're history.

    Accordingly, the spotlight in climate research is shifting from gradual to rapid change.

    In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report concluding that human activities could trigger abrupt change.

    Last year the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, included a session at which Robert Gagosian, director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, urged policymakers to consider the implications of possible abrupt climate change within two decades.

    Such jeremiads are beginning to reverberate more widely. Billionaire Gary Comer, founder of Lands' End, has adopted abrupt climate change as a philanthropic cause. Hollywood has also discovered the issueónext summer 20th Century Fox is expected to release The Day After Tomorrow, a big-budget disaster movie starring Dennis Quaid as a scientist trying to save the world from an ice age precipitated by global warming.

    Fox's flick will doubtless be apocalyptically edifying. But what would abrupt climate change really be like?

    http://www.fortune.com/fortune/tech...82584-1,00.html
    Last edited by dragonslayer2001; 02-09-2004 at 01:50 PM.

  20. #20
    • Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food and water and to ensure our national security.

    Why does that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up?

    • Form teams to prepare responses to possible massive migration, and food and water shortages.

    I should hope they do. But what sort of responses will they be coming up with?

    .....Alan.

  21. #21
    As for terrorists trying to kill me right now? At the moment, and based on the last 2 years military action, I don't see any terrorist that has a snowball's chance in hell of hurting me or my family. Just a so far baseless threat

    You sound like that famous southern governer in 1861 who saw no need to send troops from his state to defend the Confederacy. After all, noboby was invading his state.

    Sherman showed up in 1864 and put 'paid' to that philosophy.

  22. #22
    DS2001, your paste here of the Climate Collapse article is only the first of three pages. The most interesting stuff is on the second and third pages in the Fortune layout.

    Safecastle's Preparedness Buyers Club www.safecastle.com
    Deep thinkers dig their bunkers. Got shelter? http://www.safecastle.com/sheltershome.aspx
    Like Us on Facebook

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    In A Basket Of Deplorables
    Posts
    10,160
    DS: I have one question about that Jesuit Priest's theory. Why does the theory assume that only the northern hemisphere would be affected by an ice age? I can see trying to clear space along the equator and subtropical regions, but why south of the equator? I would imagine that South Africa, southern Australia, and most especially the southern tip of South America would be just as uninhabitable (heck, some parts of Patagonia are already too harsh for human habitation).


    Not trying to disparage the climate upheaval theory, as I happen to agree (when lefty Woods Hole starts refuting the global warming party line, I listen). I just want to clear up a bit of bad science that floated in there.



    Next question becomes, if it happens, who plans to stay where they are, who plans to stay in the US but move further south, and who plans to head for (theoretically) greener pastures in Saharan Africa (all they need is more rain and some organic material, and the sahara will have the nicest loam for agriculture). Me, I'm staying here in TX. I figure that, although a bit drier, the climate would probably work out to being similar to new england, but without the pink-tinged politics.
    E Deploribus Unum

    Oderint dum metuant

    Every day is a JDAM day

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Troke

    I never anywhere say not to pursue and destroy the terrorists OR the States that pay and train them.

    What I say is that we kick their asses.

    The only real threat they pose, is biological and nuclear. Poisons and car bombs are tiny blips on the stage.

    Annoyances but not nation killers.

    I am sure I have studied as much military history as you have.

    The terrorists do NOT pose a threat that could cause "decades of warfare".

    Something else, as yet undefined, or rather, un-proven, does.

    Unfortunately there are a number of quite real possibilities. Nuclear war with Russia and/or China. A Supervolcanoe. A collapsing magnetic shield (and as for those that have convinced themselves that such a massive change AS THAT would have no bearing on their health and safety, oh paaaaleeeeese). An unstable planet (from whatever cause) with larger and more destructive EQ's. A number of volcanoes going off and darkening the sky for 2-3 years so plants don't grow. Growing evidence that we are entering into an area of space with meteor and comet swarms. A super flu.

    What have I missed? I know there are more, quite realistic and credible threats. Oh yeah, quite plain evidence of something that people are claiming are "scalar" effects.

    So, if you wish to persist in the fantasy of terrorists invading Atlanta, go ahead. The only real threat they pose is biological, nuclear, or power grid related.

    And the instant any of those appear to be taking place, I have no doubt that the American people WILL support the rounding up and internment of millions of foreigners. We have done it in the past and political correctness be damned.

    Anything seriously affecting millions of Americans in a deadly way will cause tens of millions to change their voting habits.

    You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that there is some greater threat.

    These recent announcements may be part of it. Only part. Man isn't causing all these changes, because they are occuring on other planets, right now.

    But we may not have a decade or two.

    It is possible, that we may only have a few years left to get ready for it.

    And if so, it isn't a matter of how well prepared you are where you are currently located, if you are in the zone of past ice ages.

    You can't live in an Artic Wasteland. And if hundreds of millions are displaced, nobody is going to be trucking in or airdropping food to you.

    Canadians might become Americans much quicker than they realize.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Little Pig

    Of course the entire planet will be affected. I gave a quick synopsis of a very large chapter in the guy's book. The point being that the land of the Northern races would be encased in ice. A mass migration would have to take place (such as happened in the distant past when Aryans conquered India).

    Rather than having to fight for every inch of conquered territory, it would be militarily more certain to simply weaken and destroy the indigenous populations through engineered diseases.

    Now, there are a lot of things that you could use your imagination to fit many recent events over the last few decades into this idea.

    The clear cutting of the Amazon rainforests. Where will the surplus food be grown if the North American grain belts are taken away?

    The seas have already been fished out. They could not begin to feed several billion people.

    I can also see the allowing of tens of millions of Mexicans into the country as an effort to integrate North Americans and Mexicans, an effort obviously doomed to failure, as the Mexicans would NEVER allow tens of millions of gringos into their lands peacefully.

    I'm sure others can add many other ideas to this theory.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Here is the rest

    of the Pentagon Article. When you read it, keep in mind that my position is this paper they released to fortune is for conditioning purposes. Tied in with the Woods Hole announcements about rapid salinity loss and cooling right now, and with the Canadian Government's announcement (which I haven't yet read), it is possible that there is a much more imminent danger than two decades from now.

    .................................................. .............................

    Scientists generally refuse to say much about that, citing a data deficit. But recently, renowned Department of Defense planner Andrew Marshall sponsored a groundbreaking effort to come to grips with the question. A Pentagon legend, Marshall, 82, is known as the Defense Department's "Yoda"—a balding, bespectacled sage whose pronouncements on looming risks have long had an outsized influence on defense policy. Since 1973 he has headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to national security. The Department of Defense's push on ballistic-missile defense is known as his brainchild. Three years ago Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld picked him to lead a sweeping review on military "transformation," the shift toward nimble forces and smart weapons.

    When scientists' work on abrupt climate change popped onto his radar screen, Marshall tapped another eminent visionary, Peter Schwartz, to write a report on the national-security implications of the threat. Schwartz formerly headed planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group and has since consulted with organizations ranging from the CIA to DreamWorks—he helped create futuristic scenarios for Steven Spielberg's film Minority Report. Schwartz and co-author Doug Randall at the Monitor Group's Global Business Network, a scenario-planning think tank in Emeryville, Calif., contacted top climate experts and pushed them to talk about what-ifs that they usually shy away from—at least in public.

    The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn't pretend to be a forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help planners think about coping strategies. Here is an abridged version:

    A total shutdown of the ocean conveyor might lead to a big chill like the Younger Dryas, when icebergs appeared as far south as the coast of Portugal. Or the conveyor might only temporarily slow down, potentially causing an era like the "Little Ice Age," a time of hard winters, violent storms, and droughts between 1300 and 1850. That period's weather extremes caused horrific famines, but it was mild compared with the Younger Dryas.

    For planning purposes, it makes sense to focus on a midrange case of abrupt change. A century of cold, dry, windy weather across the Northern Hemisphere that suddenly came on 8,200 years ago fits the bill—its severity fell between that of the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The event is thought to have been triggered by a conveyor collapse after a time of rising temperatures not unlike today's global warming. Suppose it recurred, beginning in 2010. Here are some of the things that might happen by 2020:

    At first the changes are easily mistaken for normal weather variation—allowing skeptics to dismiss them as a "blip" of little importance and leaving policymakers and the public paralyzed with uncertainty. But by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is happening. The average temperature has fallen by up to five degrees Fahrenheit in some regions of North America and Asia and up to six degrees in parts of Europe. (By comparison, the average temperature over the North Atlantic during the last ice age was ten to 15 degrees lower than it is today.) Massive droughts have begun in key agricultural regions. The average annual rainfall has dropped by nearly 30% in northern Europe, and its climate has become more like Siberia's.

    Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on its way to collapse. A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands, making coastal cities such as the Hague unlivable. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

    Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.

    Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

    Europe, hardest hit by its temperature drop, struggles to deal with immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa and elsewhere. But Western Europe's wealth helps buffer it from catastrophe.

    Australia's size and resources help it cope, as does its location—the conveyor shutdown mainly affects the Northern Hemisphere. Japan has fewer resources but is able to draw on its social cohesion to cope—its government is able to induce population-wide behavior changes to conserve resources.

    China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. It is hit by increasingly unpredictable monsoon rains, which cause devastating floods in drought-denuded areas. Other parts of Asia and East Africa are similarly stressed. Much of Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a rising sea level, which contaminates inland water supplies. Countries whose diversity already produces conflict, such as India and Indonesia, are hard-pressed to maintain internal order while coping with the unfolding changes.

    As the decade progresses, pressures to act become irresistible—history shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding, they raid. Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations, invading Russia—which is weakened by a population that is already in decline—for access to its minerals and energy supplies. Or picture Japan eyeing nearby Russian oil and gas reserves to power desalination plants and energy-intensive farming. Envision nuclear-armed Pakistan, India, and China skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Or Spain and Portugal fighting over fishing rights—fisheries are disrupted around the world as water temperatures change, causing fish to migrate to new habitats.

    Growing tensions engender novel alliances. Canada joins fortress America in a North American bloc. (Alternatively, Canada may seek to keep its abundant hydropower for itself, straining its ties with the energy-hungry U.S.) North and South Korea align to create a technically savvy, nuclear-armed entity. Europe forms a truly unified bloc to curb its immigration problems and protect against aggressors. Russia, threatened by impoverished neighbors in dire straits, may join the European bloc.

    Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Oil supplies are stretched thin as climate cooling drives up demand. Many countries seek to shore up their energy supplies with nuclear energy, accelerating nuclear proliferation. Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. Israel, China, India, and Pakistan also are poised to use the bomb.

    The changes relentlessly hammer the world's "carrying capacity"—the natural resources, social organizations, and economic networks that support the population. Technological progress and market forces, which have long helped boost Earth's carrying capacity, can do little to offset the crisis—it is too widespread and unfolds too fast.

    As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies. As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.

    Over the past decade, data have accumulated suggesting that the plausibility of abrupt climate change is higher than most of the scientific community, and perhaps all of the political community, are prepared to accept. In light of such findings, we should be asking when abrupt change will happen, what the impacts will be, and how we can prepare—not whether it will really happen. In fact, the climate record suggests that abrupt change is inevitable at some point, regardless of human activity. Among other things, we should:

    • Speed research on the forces that can trigger abrupt climate change, how it unfolds, and how we'll know it's occurring.

    • Sponsor studies on the scenarios that might play out, including ecological, social, economic, and political fallout on key food-producing regions.

    • Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food and water and to ensure our national security.

    • Form teams to prepare responses to possible massive migration, and food and water shortages.

    • Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling—today it appears easier to warm than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be "geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic temperature drop.

    In sum, the risk of abrupt climate change remains uncertain, and it is quite possibly small. But given its dire consequences, it should be elevated beyond a scientific debate. Action now matters, because we may be able to reduce its likelihood of happening, and we can certainly be better prepared if it does. It is time to recognize it as a national security concern.

    The Pentagon's reaction to this sobering report isn't known—in keeping with his reputation for reticence, Andy Marshall declined to be interviewed. But the fact that he's concerned may signal a sea change in the debate about global warming. At least some federal thought leaders may be starting to perceive climate change less as a political annoyance and more as an issue demanding action.

    If so, the case for acting now to address climate change, long a hard sell in Washington, may be gaining influential support, if only behind the scenes. Policymakers may even be emboldened to take steps such as tightening fuel-economy standards for new passenger vehicles, a measure that would simultaneously lower emissions of greenhouse gases, reduce America's perilous reliance on OPEC oil, cut its trade deficit, and put money in consumers' pockets. Oh, yes—and give the Pentagon's fretful Yoda a little less to worry about.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Southern Oregon Coast
    Posts
    11,677
    Isn't this the movie made from the book "The Coming Global Superstorm"? I was pretty sure that's what they were going to call it. That book was researched extremely well. There are many things that happened through recorded history that we really know nothing about. Many, many weather problems around the world in the near past. Freakish winds & hails etc. and they are now becoming more & more frequent. Witness our WIERD weather in the last 5 years.

    Nobody freaked over this & DEMANDED the govt. do something about fossil fuels etc. many years ago. Still getting worse & we still aren't doing anything on a monumental scale, which is what is needed now.

    Yup, those Canadians will be flocking this way. Borders will not matter. It will also be hard to conduct a war in freakish weather. Both sides might have to pick up their stuff and MOVE.
    The TRUTH Is Out There Keep Searching! Start by going WITHIN.

    The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114
    As the decade progresses, pressures to act become irresistible—history shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding, they raid

    As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies.

    Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food and water and to ensure our national security

    What the Fortune article does, I think, is heavily gloss over what could very well happen, and quite rapidly. Don't forget, Fortune got the "unclassified" version, and it's author, or chief thinker, refused to be interviewed.

    The scientific data supporting this rapid weather change is from ice samples.

    Ice ages in the last million years have inevitably come, and gone. There is no doubt that another one will come.

    There is room for doubt that we will get an ice age as opposed to a mini ice age.

    That article, for as much doom as you can read into it, is the best case scenario if rapid climate change takes place.

    At no time in past catastrophes have the oceans been fished out as they are now. At no time in the past, to our knowledge, has the animal kingdom been so cut down as today. There are no more vast heards of millions of bison roaming North America.

    With warnings that the world is already on the downside of the oil curve - there is no mass food production.

    The article incorrectly states that Canada has an abundance of hydro. The reality is just last week there was a long newscast of the reality of dwindling hydro in Ontario, that the period of cheap and abundant electricity IS OVER NOW.

    Worst case is that most of the Northern Hemisphere is either encased in ice or too cold to live in, in a very short time period.

    North American and European "wealth" has been based on the vestiges of a former colonial powers, and a massive US military presense. We strip much of our wealth from the rest of the world. That includes the Canadians with Americans, as we enjoy the highest standard of living of any humans that have ever existed.

    Worst case is that North America cannot feed North Americans.

    Worst case is that the manufacturing infrastructure has to move somewhere.

    Worst case is that biological and nuclear war break out all over the place as nations strive to utterly destroy their competitors, as only the modern age has supplied them to the tools to do so.

    Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food and water and to ensure our national security

    Think about it.

    And relate it to the sudden press release by the Canadian Government.

  29. #29

    Pardon me, but this is the same bunch that are declaring the holy bible to be hate

    literature. So much for sound judgement!!

    We would be better off consulting tarot cards to discern our future. Yes, I have grown cynical over what is Political science being passed off as science.

    If the world is heating (We can't really be sure that that's happening) let's look to the influence of the sun. Now, what do we do about that?

    Woolly

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Deja

    "Nobody freaked over this & DEMANDED the govt. do something about fossil fuels etc. many years ago. Still getting worse & we still aren't doing anything on a monumental scale, which is what is needed now."


    It is my personal contention, that yes man pollutes, and that we may have contributed to this. It is also my contention that if this is the time period for it to reoccur, there is probably nothing man can do to stop it.

    We can try to engineer the planet, but that is entirely hit and miss. Like chemtrail spraying. It is probably killing all of us slowly and doing very little to change the inevitable.

    The climate, magnetic energy, and heat of all the other planets have been in a period of rapid change, as has the sun and the earth.

    Whatever is happening is far bigger than mankind.

    It is my contention, that certain of TPTB know that it is at least possible, that Northern races will have to up and relocate.

    It is my contention that certain of TPTB KNOW that something is happening, and an all out fight for oil, food, water, and national survival is coming. In a decade or two for sure. Within this decade more than likely, in light of recent events. Within months? Well, possible. We are shifting our military assets all over the earth.

    A new, lighter, military fits the bill in fighting colonial wars of conquest over forces that do not possess heavy armorments.

    It makes no sense if Russia were still seen as an enemy fighting a conventional war against us.

    It is possible that Russia is as well aware of this threat as we are, and would have no where to go except south into Asia.

    It certainly puts all these bird flus into a different light, doesn't it?

    Bird flus and human flues originate in Asia all the time. If a mass killer broke out there, the indigenous leadership would have to consider that a "natural" outbreak was more likely than bio war.

    Another thought that just came to me. We are withdrawing our forces from Europe, and South Korea. Why?

    Because the threat has gone away? I don't think so.

    Rather, according to my theory, we are not willing to waste our military might fighting to save Europeans or S Koreans. We are willing to use our military might to save and protect OUR national interests.

    It may not only be that old allies are abandoning us. It is possible that in an all out fight for national survival, we are abandoning them.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Expose

    "but when they throw in the *larger* and *longer* and *than Terrorists* comments....it screams rhetoric.."


    Yes. Possibly. Canadians are very much anti-American.

    Or, they have suddenly come to the realization that the North Atlantic pump is suddenly dropping.

    And according to some theories, that could mean rapid, rapid, uncontrollable climate change.

    "that could cause hundreds of millions to lose their homes"

    Again, I stress, I haven't read anything on this, I just heard the announcement over the radio, and didn't see CNN (I don't get it).

    There are not Hundreds of Millions of Canadians. Homegrowns and immigrants together are a little over 30 million. So they are talking about something happening that could force a lot of Northern Hemisphere people into mass migrations.

    That is how I read that statement. They could be talking about rising seas causing abandonment of coastal and low lying areas.

    Yes, possible.

    But if the N Atlantic pump shuts down suddenly, that will only be one minor worry.

    Take a look at the weather in the last two years. Magnify that happening times ten.

    Now, you can either believe Mr. Larry and other supporters of the USGS, or you can believe other researchers, that show that earthquakes are larger and more vigorous than normal. And ditto for the "number" of volcanoes shooting off.

    You can recall the recent postings about the sun exploding as never before.

    You can also recall the recent postings about the magnetic shield certainly collapsing right now, time frame open to debate, and the recent evidence that huge gaps in the shield have been forced open in the last few months.

    With all this information coming out. With movies such as The Day After Tomorrow. With the massive military mobilization, and shifing of assets all over the world. With our securing, by military might, oil supplies, world opinion be damned.

    So, you can scream rhetoric, or you can start tying these things together.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    columbia, mo
    Posts
    5,759

    some genius in the .gov finally read velikovsky...

    and actually comprehended it...

    o)<

    mike
    black is white...

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    2,144
    Dragonslayer, I know this is hard for you to grasp but it is the truth; Canadians are not anti-American. But alot of us are damned well anti-Bush and anti-Big American Business Raping our country.

    I know you guys have a hard time separating yourselves from Bush, but you really should. I don't see him as representing the citizens of the USA. I see a man who is being manipulated by powers that care not for the average American.

    Same people manipilating Bush are manipulating our "leaders" as well. Quit looking for differences. Look for similarities.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Ghostdog

    Not to digress too much, but "Dragonslayer, I know this is hard for you to grasp but it is the truth; Canadians are not anti-American."

    Being an American in Canada, who has spent at least 13 years living here on and off, I can safely say that most Canadians are truly blind to the rampant anti-Americanism going on all around them.

    I'm not. My two teenage boys are not, they live with it almost every week. My brother who has spent the last 20 years living on Vancouver Island agrees that it has never been worse, even during the Vietnam war years.

    I could spend a great deal of time citing examples especially on tv and in the press, but I won't.

    I will only say one thing, the "average" Canadian that I have been exposed to, all over Canada, fears and loathes Americans far more than they do the Russians, or Chinese, each of which has murdered tens of millions of their own people.

    I don't say the "average" Canadian would be out beating up Americans if they could (though they would be out beating up homosexuals and Pakistanis if they could get away with it).

    But your country is still massively anti-American.

    Now I will say this, I think the "average" Canadian member of TB is much more friendly to Americans than most Canadians, as most "average" elderly Canadians are more friendly to Americans than those 50 and younger.

    I also think that most Canadian military personnel are much more likely to think of American's as "allies" than the "average" Canadian.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Second star on the right, straight on 'till morning...
    Posts
    4,698

    The Core.

    Anybody see the movie The Core?"

    It would be interesting viewing for anybody leaning towards believing the theories in this thread. (It's a good movie for anyone, come to that IMHO).

    If you elect to rush out and get it, just replace the word "DESTINI" for H.A.A.R.P. and you have at the very least some food for thought.

    Dee.
    [url=http://pub6.ezboard.com/btwcs]Click here to visit Jesse's Forum[/url]

    <center>[B][color=Navy][U]Nails[/U] didn't hold Jesus to the cross - LOVE did![/color][/B]</center>

    <center>[B][color=Navy]"For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God - no explanation is possible."[/color][/B]</center>

  36. #36
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Second star on the right, straight on 'till morning...
    Posts
    4,698
    dragonslayer...

    I have to agree with ghostdog.

    I don't personally know anyone who is "anti-American."

    To tell you the truth, I think most Canadians do prefer Canadian politics to American politics, but the *people* in the U.S. and the land itself are as cherished to the average Canadian, as Canada is.

    Dee.
    [url=http://pub6.ezboard.com/btwcs]Click here to visit Jesse's Forum[/url]

    <center>[B][color=Navy][U]Nails[/U] didn't hold Jesus to the cross - LOVE did![/color][/B]</center>

    <center>[B][color=Navy]"For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God - no explanation is possible."[/color][/B]</center>

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,460
    DS, I hear ya. I can be very anti-American if it suits me for the moment. But be aware, I was born in the US, my dad was in the US Navy, and I have American family in Michigan and Florida. I will momentarily become anti-American for one of two reasons.

    1. Feeling of superiority. The "You're bigger so we have to be better" syndrome. Example: I worked in a gas bar a few years back here in N. ON. Young lady (12ish) comes in and pays for the gas for her family's RV. We converse in English. A few minutes later she comes in and asks if we speak Canadian. I told her we speak English. Shook my head on that one. Maybe she meant French?

    2. Fear. We have a lot of resources here that the US could use. Like water. We're not prepared to effectively protect them.

    All that said, my first call after the first plane went into the first tower was to my aunt and uncle in Florida. I knew my aunt would be a basket case. All my cousins (her kids) live in the Detroit area.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    Much

    as I would love to debate Canadian's deep felt emotions about their brother to the south, this is drifting too far from the point of the thread.

    I would much rather hear your views on what, as a family, or a country you would propose to do if you found that NONE of your country was going to be livable within 2-5 years, and very little of the US would be habitable, and Mexico was refusing to allow entry by tens of millions of North Americans.

    What would you do?

  39. #39
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114
    http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/...hange_wef.html

    .................................................. ...............................................

    Are we overlooking potential abrupt climate shifts?
    Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.



    The Global Ocean Conveyor

    Enlarge image
    The global ocean circulation system, often called the Ocean Conveyor, transports heat throughout the planet. White sections represent warm surface currents. Purple sections represent deep cold currents. (Illustration by Jayne Doucette, WHOI Graphic Services) Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earthvs climate can shift gears within a decade,

    .................................................. .............................................

    In an important paper published in 2002 in Nature, oceanographers monitoring and analyzing conditions in the North Atlantic concluded that the North Atlantic has been freshening dramatically—continuously for the past 40 years but especially in the past decade.4 The new data show that since the mid-1960s, the subpolar seas feeding the North Atlantic have steadily and noticeably become less salty to depths of 1,000 to 4,000 meters. This is the largest and most dramatic oceanic change ever measured in the era of modern instruments.


    .................................................. .............................................

  40. #40
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Montana - in the High Rockies
    Posts
    19,114

    The

    north Atlantic Pump is being messed up by too much fresh water flowing into the ocean. this pushes down the heavier salt water. if too much fresh water comes in the theory is that the pump stops. When that happens, the warm salt water from the Pacific stops flowing in and the cold then moves down from the Artic.

    .................................................. ...................

    THE CBC TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY

    '' THE NATURE OF THINGS''

    IS PRESENTING A 5 HOUR DOCUMINATION OF EARTH CHANGES IN THE ARTIC

    IN THE FIRST PART THEY DISCUSSED THE CHANGES IN THE ICE FLOWS AND THE ABILITY OF BOATS TO NAVIGATE THE NORTH PASSAGE ONLY 7 SHIPS HAVE EVER COMPLETED THIS VOYAGE UNASSISTED.

    THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE MELTING OF THE PERMA FROST AND STATED THAT THE METHANE GASES BEING RELEASED IS ENORMOUS .

    ONE PART METHANE IS EQUIVELANT TO 50 OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND THERE IS MAGA METHANE BEING RELEASED, THE THAWED PERMAFROST IS MELTING SO FAST THAT THE SOIL IS BEING WASHED INTO THE OCEAN AT AN ALARMING RATE.
    SO FAST THAT THE YOUNGER GENERATION CANNOT EXPECT TO LIVE AS DID THIER ANCESTORS, THE CHANGES ARE TOO FAST.

    ANY EARTH CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE ARE IMMEDIATELY FELT IN THE ARTIC AND IF THIS TREND DOES NOT STOP THEN THE MAJORITY OF WILDLIFE WILL BE DESTROYED THIS INCLUDES THE POLAR BEAR, CARIBOU, FISH, AND MANS ABILITY TO EXSIST IN THE NORTH.

    THE NEXT PROGRAM IS ON THE POLAR BEAR AND THE PROBLEMS FACING WILDLIFE.

    THIS IS A MUST SEE PROGRAM I HOPE YOUR CABLE NETWORK CARRIES THIS NETWORK.

    http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_arctic.html

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.