Guest Post by Martin Armstrong
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/
Back in 1971, the theory that burning fossil fuels would create an ice age, not global warming. The Washington Post reported on July 9, 1971, that Dr. S. I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University said that the fine dust from fossil fuel use would block out so much sunlight that the Earth’s “average temperature could drop by six degrees.” Rasool went on to argue that “such a temperature increase could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Scientists with time figured out that this would not happen on any permanent basis. After all, when a volcano erupts, it hurls up ash which does block the sun. The major event of Mount Tambora eruption in 1816 threw into the air so much ash that it snowed during the summer in New York City. It became known as 18-hundred-and-froze-to-death. This account from history tells the story that 1816 was a year when the sunlight could not penetrate the natural pollution from Tambora. As a result of a volcanic eruption at Mount Tambora in Indonesia, weather patterns were disrupted worldwide for months, allowing for excessive rain, frost, and snowfall through much of the Northeastern U.S. and Europe in the summer of 1816. The global cooling altered the natural weather and it resulted in a serious food shortage that set off a mass migration from New England to the Midwest within the USA as people were trying to find the sun like me moving to Florida.
The theory that burning fossil fuels would also throw up pollutants from burning coal and other fuels thereby reflecting solar energy back into space, was not plausible since it would settle down just as it does in a volcano. Then on May 18, 1980 ,when Mount St Helens erupted triggering the largest avalanche in history, it released destructive magma and suffocating ashes, proving itself that it is a volcano is more devastating that burning fossil fuels. Mount St Helens is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire and it is now respected that should there be a plate shift, the volcano eruptions could be devastating beyond the local region.
On that fateful day in 1980, approximately 80,000-feet of ash plume ascended to the sky. Simultaneously, very hot pyroclastic flows wiped out every living thing on its path at 50 to 80 miles per hour. More than 7,000 animals died and 57 humans. For the next nine hours, it seemed houses and buildings to bridges and highways, were burned and buried in deep lava mixed with snow. Then came the 1991 eruption of Pinatubo which produced about “5 cubic kilometers of dacitic magma and may be the second largest volcanic eruption of the century. Eruption columns reached 40 kilometers in altitude” creating a giant umbrella cloud. What was more shocking, the pollution it produced took only 3 weeks to engulf the world and indeed produced cooling – not warming.
Scientists were worried that such man-made aerosols would block out so much sunlight that global temperatures would drop — just like how volcanoes can cause some atmospheric cooling. This theory all proved to be false. Where volcanos produce mostly SO2, they needed a new villain and that became CO2. But CO2 was something every grade school child learns about. Indeed, the very first time we learn about carbon dioxide was in grade school. We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact. So how did they manage to take CO2, which is vital to the system, and turn this into the villain?
When the global warming crowd has been pointing at reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, what they are really talking about behind the curtain is reducing population since we are a major exported of CO2. They are not telling everyone their real goal so they do not want to talk about how they are not taking into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect. Through the process of photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to humans. Plants also perform some form of respiration, since they too need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis. The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues composing roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. This enters our food chain as they are eaten by animals, including us, which are eaten by yet other animals, including us. Therefore, as humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.
The natural way to offset CO2 would be to grow more trees and plants. They way global warming has become a religion, one would think the goal would be to eliminate all CO2. To accomplish that, we need to start thinning the herd. So the fear of global cooling was converted to global warming and the environmental agenda behind the curtain is to eliminate someone’s grandchild.
There is no argument that our massive industrialization over the last 150 years is having an effect on our enviorment ! Polluted air and water both things we are addressing with better industrial technologies . Advancing technology and industry made a mess in many cases but the way to clean it up is not to take on a Luddite mentality ! The way to our cleaner betterment is with smarter cleaner industry and technology preparing us for what the future may bring !
Let’s stop all this touchy feely nonsense in education and start training engineers , designers and mechanics that can put the parts together and make it go ! There is nothing that can be done without some of us getting our hands dirty and there should be no shame in that . No matter how smart we all may think we are sooner or later we appreciate some one that can actually fix something !
The current “climate change” issue is about mans emissions of CO2, not industrial pollution of rivers and such.
I see no evidence we are having any significant effect on the environment by this.
Currently, the US has one of the cleanest overall environments of any industrialized nation.
Your application for a scientific Grant, funding research into whale excretions and their effect on sea levels, has been denied.
You have hit upon the very reason CO2 is such an evil “pollutant”. In the extreme environmentalists mind, man is a blight on the earth; the cancer that must be removed from mother nature. Unfortunately, man has been doing a pretty good job (at least in the USA) of cleaning up our by products of our industry and energy producers. So, rather than recognizing our achievements in improving the environment, the environment lobbyists had to find a new approach to demonize mankind . CO2 became that monster, that they could set their hopes on to attack industry, because who would have thought to eliminate the very gas that is a big part of the circle of life, as referenced in the article. I do remember at the Pittsburgh Zoo a few years back, a special day was held to help combat CO pollution by passing out seedlings that would “eat up” the bad CO2; I wonder how much trouble the organizers got into for running with this nutty idea?
You are quite correct. I have a coworker that stated humans are just a bunch of hungry rats gnawing on the planet. So I asked what needed to be done and his solution was population reduction (his repertoire is usually mindless repetition of “progressive” talking points). I responded that the Georgia Guide Stones say that 500,000,000 is sustainable, did that sound like a good number? He agreed that it did. So I explained that would mean over 6 billion people had to go. Then I said “Let’s be generous and only cut the world’s population by 75% or 3 out of 4. There are four of you in your family. Which three die?” He was a bit taken aback and asked “Whaddya mean?” So I told him “Killing 3 out of 4 includes you and yours. Who will it be? You, your girlfriend and your son? Or you, your son and your step-daughter? You’ll have to pick…” Boy he didn’t like that; watching the cognitive dissonance gears grind in his head was pretty entertaining. He doesn’t talk to me much these days…
It hasn’t snowed here in MN in 5 weeks. That has nothing to do with anything. Just thought I’d mention it.
It has to do with the weather where you are.
Anon….thanks for the morning laugh.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Tony…..nice find but it could be just a bunch of BS. I didn’t save it, but within 2 months ago I came across an article/paper that proved just the opposite of your link. Going on memory, it provided about 2,000 peer-reviewed sources ascribing to Global Cooling.
Back in the 1970’s, there were two groups of scientists predicting a descent into the next ice age. One group included people like Stephen Schneider, who said it would be caused by man-made industrial pollution and was only 50 years away unless the authorities acted immediately. In 1975, Schneider flipped to the man-made global warming camp, as I suspect others with his position also did as it became fashionable among lefty activists.
The other group that was forecasting another ice age were the natural cycle theorists, such as Reid “father of climatology” Bryson, who died a few years back, and George Kukla, who was still active a few years ago and may still be alive. Neither of these men ever wavered, and Kukla says that recent discoveries in geology show that global warming episodes like the one we went through in the last quarter of the 20th century typically occur before the termination of interglacials.
One mistake of the natural cycle theorists back in the seventies was that they assumed the transition to ice age conditions was gradual, but discoveries in the decades since then indicate that is not the case. In the past, the climate typically flipped from a warm to a cool, glaciation-inducing state in a disturbingly short time, apparently in less than five years, perhaps as little as one year, although the end of the last interglacial appears to have been preceded by a more gradual deterioration in the climate that lasted about a century, give or take 25 years, before the “flip” caused deciduous trees in northwestern Europe to be replaced by sub-Arctic vegetation within 20 years. And that is considered one of the less abrupt transitions.
In a recent comment on a climate blog, Phil Chapman, who seems to have done a lot a reading on this matter, claimed that whenever the magnetic pole flipped during an interglacial, that interglacial terminated. Of course, the rapid weakening now happening in the geomagnetic field has been widely reported, yet we continue to be told that we must pull out all stops to “prevent global warming!”
There are several other factors that signaled the imminent termination of previous interglacials, and all of them are currently flashing either red or bright yellow. The crowd that screams capitalism is the culprit and “global governance” is the solution are wrong about both cause and direction, but that does not mean that the past 11,000 years is reliable guide to the future any more than August weather can be extrapolated into December.
Other than the exact timing, which can never be known for the collapse of any complex system, the other major question is whether civilization can survive the transition, which appears inevitable. Certainly civilization as it is currently structured cannot survive it. Our supply chains are too long, are productive processes too complex and interdependent, our technology too fragile, several critical resources are too close to depletion, and the whole infrastructure that sustains us arose during a few generations of relatively warm and stable weather. A fool’s paradise, indeed!
I read this week that there almost 25000 scientists that global warming is bulsh… The weather in MN sounds kinda like Indiana this year. 60+ degree days and it was 29 last night. When the sun shines there is still a thin veil of clouds in front of it. And the skies are full of airplanes pumping out trails that join together and head for Indianapolis. How are going to convince snowflakes that this isn’t all global warming unless we crank up the temps. This year the last five storms that were going to dump feet of snow and long term ice storms just never materialized. Go figure how about those Chemtrails in MN, anything like here?? In 78 there is a 1500 page document about using weather as a weapon. HAARP was in its infancy back then. Haarp is sposed to use aluminumand barium from chemtrails to reflect sunlight and increase something to makes waves in the ionosphere. Rerouting jetstreams. Texas was under a seven yr. drought until they complained about Jade Helm and then came rains and flooding. Duterte in the Phillipines ticked off Obama and just got hit with his second hurricane in months. If they don’t control the weather how can they promote climate change. Where was Al Gore back in 71? I remember they were sticking the microphone in faces on the campus back then. They sounded deluded and stupid back then and I was only 11. That is when they started putting loggers out of business and after that came spotted owls. We have to Kill off 95% of the population and we need volunteers. The Song Remains the same. The loggers were replanting the trees, now we have more trees than before because of better management practices. That is when they pulled out the spotted owl. The woman in the last week or so, from the UN said that climate change was to destroy capitalism, I think it is still in the headlines. This crap has been sold to our children,and they believe it! Wildlands project? geoengineeringwatch.com Bariumblues.com. Great article keep your swords sharp and powder dry
A few years ago, Ed Snowden, God bless him, said that chemtrails were a classifed geoengineering project to counteract global warming. I presume it would have been too controversial among both the left and right to have successfully authorized this project with public knowledge.
Hey mangle, give us simians a break and cozy up the concept of PARAGRAPHS for fuck sake.
Chemtrails have stopped in my corner of paradise. From 2007 until last year the sky was a grey mess by noon everyday. The middle of last year brought deep blue skies right down to the horizon and it’s been that way since then. I almost forgot what completely blue skies looked like.
I too was a childhood victim of the Next Ice Age BS. I was an elementary student in Montana at the time and when I left there in 1979 I never heard another word about it. I just thought that since they were still trying to teach 12 and 13 year old negros how to read and do basic math in my new S. Carolina school that important subjects like science took a back seat. I don’t ever remember taking a science class in SC but they resumed when I got to Spain a couple of years later.