It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is difficult to say to what degree is Morgellons Disease contagious. Many people with this disease have family members who exhibit no symptoms whatsoever. On the other hand, many entire families have reported becoming infected at or near the same time. At this juncture, it remains unclear if these households with multiple infected members reflect contagion, due to human-to-human transmission, or some type of mutual exposure.
Google Video Link |
People affected with this disease experience a variety of unusual symptoms anywhere from disturbing crawling feelings on or under their skin to stinging and biting sensations and non-healing skin lesions. The skin wounds are in many cases characterized by a presence of strikingly unusual fiber-like structures. It is important to note that some patients have no lesions yet do have fibers produced from unbroken skin. Almost all people infected complain of black or white granules associated with their skin. An attack on the peripheral nervous system and on the central nervous system seems to be the second stage of this disease. At this point people infected with this illness report extreme difficulty with mental concentration, physical orientation and short term memory. Shooting pains across the surface of the arms, legs and head, sometimes ending with toothache resembling pain are also experienced by some individuals. Other most common symptoms of Morgellons Disease are: extreme fatigue; skin thickening and swelling; obstructions and poor drainage of lymphatic system; severe pain in the joints, muscles and the neck; and persistent diarrhea. Some of the by-products of this disease are unexpected mood swings, deep depression, and apathy to the world around us.
What is the ozone hole?
The "ozone hole" is a loss of stratospheric ozone in springtime over Antarctica, peaking in September. The ozone hole area is defined as the size of the region with total ozone below 220 Dobson units (DU). Dobson Units are a unit of measurement that refer to the thickness of the ozone layer in a vertical column from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, a quantity called the "total column ozone amount." Prior to 1979, total column ozone values over Antarctica never fell below 220 DU. The hole has been proven to be a result of human activities--the release of huge quantities of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone depleting substances into the atmosphere.
How big was the 2007 ozone hole, and is it getting bigger?
Every four years, a team of many of the top scientists researching ozone depletion put together a comprehensive summary of the scientific knowledge on the subject, under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). According to their most recent assessment, (WMO, 2006), monthly total column ozone amounts in September and October have continued to be 40 to 50% below pre-ozone-hole values, with up to 70% decreases for periods of a week or so. During the last decade, the average ozone hole area in the spring has increased in size, but not as rapidly as during the 1980s. It is not yet possible to say whether the area of the ozone hole has maximized. However, chlorine in the stratosphere has reached nearly constant levels and is expected to start declining, so the ozone hole may have seen its maximum size. Annual variations in temperature will probably be the dominant factor in determining differences in size of the ozone hole in the near future, due to the importance of cold-weather Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) that act as reactive surfaces to accelerate ozone destruction.
The 2007 hole was fairly average when compared to those of the past 15 years. On September 13, 2007, the hole reached it maximum size of 24 million square kilometers (9.3 million square miles), a full 18% smaller than the 2006 hole. The 2006 hole reached its maximum size of 29 million square kilometers (11.3 million square miles) on September 24, 2006, according to NASA. This is very close to the record ozone hole size of September 10, 2000, when it covered 29.2 million square kilometers (11.5 million square miles). The depth of the hole, however, was greater in 2006 than in 2000. the amount of lost ozone amounted to 40 million tons on October 2, beating 2000's record of 39 million tons. The lowest ozone value of 2006 was 102 Dobson units, compared to the record low of 88 Dobson units (observed in 1993). The graph below, taken from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, compares the 2007 ozone hole size with previous years. The smaller size of this year's hole is due to the warmer winter weather than occurred in 2006, leading to formation of fewer Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) than in 2006. These clouds act as ozone destroying chemical factories. The U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) said in August 2006 that the ozone layer would likely return to pre-1980 levels by 2049 over much of Europe, North America, Asia, Australasia, Latin America and Africa. In Antarctica, the agencies said ozone layer recovery would likely be delayed until 2065.
Has there been ozone loss in places besides Antarctica?
Yes, ozone loss has been reported in the mid and high latitudes in both hemispheres during all seasons (WMO, 2006). Relative to the pre-ozone-hole abundances of 1980, the 2002-2005 losses in total column ozone were:
# About 3% in the Northern Hemisphere south of 60°N
# About 6% in the Southern Hemisphere north of 60°S
Other studies have shown the following ozone losses:
# About 12% at Punta Arenas, Chile, the southernmost city in the world (Abarca and Casiccia, 2002).
# About 8% in summer in southern Australia (Manin et. al., 2001).
# About 10-15% in summer in New Zealand (McKenzie et. al., 1999).
In the Arctic, some recent cold winters have led to 30% losses in total column ozone in early spring. Ozone loss in the Arctic is highly dependent on the meteorology, due to the importance of cold-weather Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) that act as reactive surfaces to accelerate ozone destruction. For this reason, the warm Arctic winter of 1998/1999 saw very little ozone loss due to the lack of PSCs, while the cold 1999/2000 winter saw a 20-25% loss of ozone.
A future Arctic ozone hole similar to that of the Antarctic appears unlikely, due to differences in the meteorology of the polar regions of the northern and southern hemispheres (WMO, 2002). However, a recent model study (Rex et. al., 2004), indicates that future Arctic ozone depletion could be much worse than expected, and that each degree Centigrade cooling of the Arctic may result in a 4% decrease in ozone. This heightened ozone loss is expected due to an increase in PSCs. The Arctic stratosphere has cooled 3°C in the past 20 years due the combined effects of ozone loss, greenhouse gas accumulation, and natural variability, and may cool further in the coming decades due to the greenhouse effect (WMO, 2002). An additional major loss of Arctic (and global) ozone could occur as the result of a major volcanic eruption (Tabazadeh, 2002).
Please visit the website for more information.
n its landmark Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2007 that human influence on climate "has been detected in every continent except Antarctica".
Now a paper in Nature Geoscience says that our impact can be found even in the last wilderness.
While some specific climate changes have been linked to human activity, especially in the Arctic, it has not yet been possible to conclusively demonstrate a link to actual surface temperature changes at both poles. When they made their statement on Antarctica, the IPCC cited "insufficient observational coverage to make an assessment"
Changes actually observed did not fit with the models when only natural climate changes and variability were present. They were only explainable when human influence on the climate was taken into account.
Originally posted by calihan123
Electricunclesam....
It is never too late to change things. No matter what people may make you think or believe... we can always change things. It's just that there may not be enough people who are willing to change. If we wanted our future to be bright and full of hope, it would be. But people are so set in their every day lives, and they dont care much to look outside of that, at what's really going on in the world.
If they did start to care, maybe we could have a great future. But as of right now there just arent enough people who care to change the world.
Earth, but not as we know it...
CNN: Does a reliable climate record stretch back 3.8 billion years?
JZ: It does, though it gets better and better as the rocks get younger. Way back that far, there are some indications that the Earth was really quite warm. It might have been upwards of 50-60 degrees centigrade, although this evidence is uncertain.
But there is cast iron evidence going back up to 2.5 billion years ago of episodes of cold (glaciations). These leave distinctive marks on the geography of the time which translates into the strata we now look at.
CNN: How would you describe our impact on the planet?
JZ: What we're doing is coming into this rather dynamic yet delicately balanced system where you switch from one state to another and it's like we are hitting it hard with a hammer.
Because of the effect of land use changes we are changing how reflective the Earth is. And particularly by putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we're changing the heat balance of the Earth. The best prediction, held by the great majority of scientists, is that it will tip the Earth into a warmer state, something like that which pertained before the ice ages started (between three and tens of million years ago).
But the timing isn't certain. When change takes place it often changes at times called tipping points. Things carry on much the same while the system is being pushed and then it gives way fairly quickly and refashions itself into a new system.
If I was a betting man, I would say that somewhere within the next few centuries or perhaps even the next few decades the earth will re-orientate itself into what will likely be a global climate warmer by somewhere between three to five degrees centigrade.
CNN: What part has CO2 played in previous warming episodes?
JZ: We've got very good records for CO2 for the last one million years because you get bubbles of air trapped in polar ice and those have been drilled, measured, analyzed and they give an entirely consistent story showing temperature rises in step with CO2. There is an argument as to cause and effect -- but CO2's heat-trapping effects have been known for over a century.
Going further back in time it is harder to measure CO2. You can look at fossil leaves or chemistry of the limestones laid down in the oceans or of fossils. They give an idea that 100 million years ago CO2 levels were several times higher that today. But then there were hardly any ice caps on Earth and sea levels were getting on for a hundred meters higher than now.
Though we can't measure exactly the levels CO2 in the atmosphere at the time, we can see changes in carbon atoms that went into fossils. These can reveal ancient carbon release events.
The worry is that we're putting in some CO2 and maybe that is only the beginning. We warm the climate a bit and maybe disturb huge reservoirs of methane trapped in ocean floor sediments and in permafrost. If we release those then we could have quite severe warming.
CNN: Climate change deniers often seize on evidence of previous pre-historic periods of warming as proof that humans are not to blame for the current crisis. Are they right?
JZ: They are right and they are wrong, if you like. They are right in that the earth has seen climate changes on all scales -- there have been long episodes of more or less stability and also episodes of sharp changes and we are reading those better and better. Science is advancing quite fast here.
But the climate change deniers are wrong in asserting that humans can't seriously affect climate: we can and we are doing.
For the past 10,000 years we have been living in a remarkably stable climate where temperature hasn't changed by much more than a degree globally and sea level hasn't changed much more than a meter of so. The previous half a million years have been marked by quite sharp up and down changes, every few thousand years of a few degrees centigrade.
We've gone out of that into a climate plateau if you like. And we are living in a warm event that has lasted longer than any of the three previous ones. The climate is a delicately balanced machine and it would be best to try and leave it set as it is. All of our lives, our agriculture, our cities, our buildings are based on the world's geography staying as it is.
The oceanographer Wallace Broecker has worked on these problems his whole life. He has a number of pithy phrases. One goes something like is; 'The climate is an angry beast. Best not to provoke it'.
It has been an angry beast in the past and our actions may well provoke it again.
What we don't want is to make it change more quickly than it would do otherwise into something that would be much less comfortable for civilization.
So far, we are a very short-lived species, about 160,000 years. The typical species span is between one and five million years. So we've arrived very recently and it's really only in the last 10,000 years -- a blink of the eye geologically -- that we've developed and it's only in the last 200 that our effects have gone global.
Originally posted by calihan123
Electricunclesam....
It is never too late to change things. No matter what people may make you think or believe... we can always change things. It's just that there may not be enough people who are willing to change. If we wanted our future to be bright and full of hope, it would be. But people are so set in their every day lives, and they dont care much to look outside of that, at what's really going on in the world.
If they did start to care, maybe we could have a great future. But as of right now there just aren't enough people who care to change the world.