Global Warming - Returning to Normal

I wonder if much thought has been given to the idea that we are the cause of global cooling. In the past the arctic regions were much warmer. The northwest passage, now frozen but is thawing, used to be a popular shipping route. As ice melts in greenland, it is revealing farms and mining operations that were abandoned when the regions froze over.

www.abcnews.go.com...

Is is possible that our industrial age pumped so much pollution into the atmosphere that we were shaded from solar energy which resulted in global cooling? During the last half of this century, the focus has been to remove pollution from our atmosphere which of course allows more solar energy to reach the surface, warming the planet. Are we simply returning to normal? If so, do we want to?

The last few hundred years of temperature readings show that the industrial age caused a cooling and leveling of global temperatures. Prior to that the temperature records show wild swings. Perhaps the removal of our pollution sun screen is returning us to the wild swings of the past.

If this is true all of the current efforts will worsen the situation. Good luck to us.

Awesome find mate! I totally think this is the most probable explanation of the worlds climate, excellent find absolutely amazing!

Originally posted by logicize
The northwest passage, now frozen but is thawing, used to be a popular shipping route.

Eh? Not according to conventional history. Although I suppose the Atlantians might have used it 120,000 years ago ...

"Eh? Not according to conventional history. Although I suppose the
Atlantians might have used it 120,000 years ago ..."

Acording to the article it is a fabled route.

Acording to this the vikings farmed greenland.

www.expressnews.ualberta.ca...

They also were at one time building up that whole area, then stopped suddenly when it froze. They had established shipping routes, probably including the northwest passage.

reply to post by logicize


A fabled route as in meaning a mythic route.

Yes the Vikings farmed the southern portions of Greenland but even at its height, the farming was marginal.

Originally posted by logicize

They also were at one time building up that whole area, then stopped suddenly when it froze. They had established shipping routes, probably including the northwest passage.

It didn't freeze over. According to the article you linked a glacier caused a sand-slide which buried a large portion of the settlement. And "that whole area" was just a sliver of land on the southwestern tip.

And before anyone mentions "it was called Greenland so it must've been green..." let me explain that the name was chosen because they wanted to attract settlers to the place. Iceland II probably wouldn't have been a wise choice.

As for the "fabled Northwest Passage," it was fabled because people theorized there must be a clear path through the ice that covers the sea north of North America. People wanted to look for a quicker route than around the tip of South America. They stopped looking after the Panama Canal opened.

Also, we haven't really removed our "pollution suncreen." Newly industrialized giants like India and China are spewing out as much if not more gunk up into the atmosphere as the west was during their industrial revolution. And now everyone is spewing out more gunk with air travel.

Originally posted by logicize
"Eh? Not according to conventional history. Although I suppose the
Atlantians might have used it 120,000 years ago ..."

Acording to the article it is a fabled route.

Acording to this the vikings farmed greenland.

Greenland is to the NW Passage what Florida is to the Panama Canal .... I suggests you look at an atlas.

But if anyone has records of the NW Passage being traversed before modern times - feel free to prove me wrong.

Maybe ancient Scots used it to trade with China?



[edit on 27-9-2007 by Essan]

Of course it will be difficult to prove that the north west passage was used in recent time until it melts and reveals sunken ships or something.

Here though, the melting ice has revealed artifacts dating to 1400 years ago, probably not far from the time the passage may have been used for shipping. This is from the yukon territory.

www.cbc.ca...

More can be found here.

www.athropolis.com...

As more ice melts, more evidence will be revealed. The fact the anyone would even try to farm in Greenland means that it was probably a much different place in our relatively recent past.

Oh, and here's another one.


Melting ice reveals a plane crash from 1976.

query.nytimes.com...

That was about the time that all the scientists were telling us of the coming new ice age. They must have been partly right, ice covered this plane for over 30 years.

What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism, all else is publicity.

needless to say, all the money and fame are in publicity

take www.abovetopsecret.com...

just try to get a thread like yours flagged . my personal pet hypothesis is that the underlaying cause of GW activism is essentially politcal, ie. they dislike the economic/miltary/politcal system (heck if you don't you must be a billionaire) and try to flank it using millions of gullible patsies and a good dose of cynicism. of course if you wanna make an omelette...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

you've got to break eggs...

see

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

especially. that's the problem with politics, their use will create conflict, ignorance and destruction in order to accumulate power. these inherent traits can't be overcome by good will, of course, only by adopting a different strategy, because, as it stands, only the power-conscious, ruthless and agressive rise to the top.

The concept of a North West passage was based on a desire to not have to make the arduous journey around the cape prior to the days of the panama canal. I am of course shocked that even in this day and age world leaders immediately set about trying to claim it. Look at the Suez / Panama canals which were dug through foreign lands for the benefit of Imperial nations.

I laugh at all of the arguments about whether global warming exists or not. Ignoring all of the arguments that say it does (year on year freak weather, melting ice caps etc) the people who deny it cannot possibly believe that it is still OK to pump pollutants into the atmosphere. Surely they can't also agree that using the finite resources of the world at an ever growing rate is a good thing, especially when there is no serious effort going into a replacement.

I can well believe that the global climate is a flutuating thing, we did have an ice age after all (though that shouldn't be used by Neo-cons in this type of argument because it wasn't in the bible ).

What I can't believe is that the systematic rape of this planets environment that started in the industrial revolution and is spreading across the globe as the demands for air conditioning, an SUV and more consumerism grows, has no effect on our ability to live here and enjoy the planet.

Instead of arguing over its existance, why can't we just get on with finding a source of energy that is non-poluting and is viable compared to the diminishing fossile fuel based economies we are all growing at an unstoppable pace. I am sure it will still end up under the control of 'bi oil' so what are they worried about?

Perhaps instead of making massive profits today they funnelled meaningful amounts of that money into research, they could make massive profits tomorrow of clean energy.

The problem is short-termist thinking, why make hard decisions now, lets just stick with the status quo.

reply to post by Long Lance



Sorry, I don't want to go off topic any more than I have to but I had to respond to those posts you linked to about Ethanol based fuels. There is a lot of politics involved in this, including oil companies love of it as it still uses petroleum products etc but aside from a few badly made comments by city councils in Canada the fact is: Ethanol is not considered any better for the environment than petrol. Burning any fuel in this way has a component that is bad for the environment.

What is considered good about Ethanol is that it comes from a renewable source, unlike petrol. This is better but of course the manner in which it is grown i.e whether it displaces food crops or rain forest is down to its implementation.

At the moment there are all kinds of 'implementation issues' with all kinds of alternative energy. The only way that they will be resolved is by putting some serious money into it, not the small amounts from oil and car companies that are basically considered part of their marketing budget.

The japanese car industry is pressing ahead with the rapid development of hybrid, electric and fuel cell cars. Do you want American industry to be caught out again and find themeslves unable to compete when the thing everyone kept saying wouldn't happen, does happen. American Industry knows this is going to happen but they are too interested in profit today at the expense of tomorrow. They then feed you a load of dis-information on the subject to get you to support them and not ask questions.

Why should we be "like a thirld world country and drive a car under two litres" is the response I hear so often

reply to post by EJHoover


first off, thanx for even replying, EJHoover

the current global warming scare is, afaics, all about buzzwords, not so much about substance, as long as you keep your eye on the alledged goal of environmental friendliness.

hybrid cars, well they are somewhat overdue, but certainly not in their current shape and form.


today's hybrids have a normal drivetrain plus electric motors plus batteries, which essentially means building two cars in one chassis and engineers have to finagle their way through development in order to give these cars a familiar 'feel' to them, greatly increasing lead times and cost, of course.

this cannot be coincidence, since the electric drivetrain is there anyway and purely electric cars have already been demonstrated in the early 1990s, so the real goal is to milk some cash (the entire industry, not just auto builders, mind you) and want to stay employed, today's engines have to be quite powerful even though you rarely use their full potential, because there's are no reserves (batteries, capacitors) to dip into for a few seconds (or half a minute). ditch that requirement, use electric drive combined with a buffer and your car just got lighter and less expensive, but several people will not sell their huge, complicated and precision-machined mechanical drivetrains! batteries are more often than not toxic, btw and the recycling/reuse issue should be cleared before hybrids enter large scale use. either that or use capacitors, they are much lighter, too.

the same can be seen in flourescent lamps, they come with rather bulky transformers which would certainly outlast the lamp itself but is firmly integrated, which means we're tossing perfectly good transformers so someone can get rich off recycling the copper in these coils, while the lamp industry itself probably derives most of its revenue from selling them.

these solutions are obvious, aren't they? do you find it credible that if only you poured 'serious money' somehwere, things would change? 'serious money is the ends in this game, everything else beomes the means.

therefore, chances are that Corn ethanol will not be replaced, no matter if food prices soar in the process, it might be supplemented by other sources but once an industry is established, it will fight tooth&nail to keep their status quo.

PS: the real question is not so much what's used for fuel, but how you do it, if you haul things thousands of miles it's not ecological, centralised millling isn't either. a village, using its locally available resources with prudence, to fulfill its needs, otoh probably is.