by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Signs of The Times
10 January 2007
Moonrise over a
A few months ago a member of the SOTT
Forum posted a link to the following article about investigations
into climate change.
I wasn't too sure what the contradictory term
"Tropical Ice Cores" meant, but the article seemed to explain all
Tropical Ice Cores Shows Two Abrupt Global
For the first time, glaciologists have combined and compared
sets of ancient climate records trapped in ice cores from the
South American Andes and the Asian Himalayas to paint a picture
of how climate has changed - and is still changing - in the
Their conclusions mark a massive climate shift to a cooler
regime that occurred just over 5,000 years ago, and a more
recent reversal to a much warmer world within the last 50 years.
The evidence also suggests that most of the high-altitude
glaciers in the planet's tropical regions will disappear in the
near future. The paper is included in the current issue of the
journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Lastly, the research shows that in most of the world, glaciers
and ice caps are rapidly retreating, even in areas where
precipitation increases are documented. This implicates
increasing temperatures and not decreasing precipitation as the
most likely culprit. [...]
"Approximately 70 percent of the world's population now lives in
the tropics so when climate changes there, the impacts are
likely to be enormous," explains Lonnie Thompson, professor of
geological sciences at Ohio State. [...]
"We have a record going back 2,000 years and when you plot it
out, you can see the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the
Ice Age (LIA)," Thompson said.
During the MWP, 700 to 1000 years
ago, the climate warmed in some parts of the world. The MWP was
followed by the LIA, a sudden onset of colder temperatures
marked by advancing glaciers in Europe and North America.
Glaciers are the
most destructive and powerful things on Earth.
"And in that same record, you can
clearly see the 20th Century and the thing that stands out -
whether you look at individual cores or the composite of all
seven - is how unusually warm the last 50 years have been.
"There hasn't been anything in the record like it - not even the
MWP," Thompson said.
"The fact that the isotope values in the last 50 years have been
so unusual means that things are dramatically changing. That's
the real story here." [...]
The colossal iceberg, 120 kilometres long, appears to have run
just 4 kilometers
from the giant ice tongue into which it was set to collide
"The take-home message is that
global climate can change abruptly, and with 6.5 billion people
inhabiting the planet, that's serious."
Warning: I'm going to talk about
"channeled material" here, so if you don't like it or think it is
whacky, you can stop reading now and not be contaminated by such
far-out, fringe nonsense..
Everybody settled down now?
Good. To continue.
The forum member, "Appollynon", added
some comments as follows:
The thing that really gets my
attention here, is how this article is very, very close to the
sort of information the C's [Cassiopaean Experiment] transcripts
were talking about in terms of abrupt Global Climate change
occurring in our near future. ...
For me the only details really missing from this article are
that our Big Blue Marble isn't the only planet in the solar
system to be affected by global warming. Which makes me wonder
"How could us pesky li'l humans be doing all this"? I don't
think we can, and I'm leaning more and more to believing through
study and observation the information presented by Laura in The
Wave series and her articles on site that hint at all of this
warming activity as a precursor to the coming Wave...
My current thinking is that there seems to be a flood of new
energy entering our planet which is affecting both the global
climate, and tectonic movements (meaning earthquake activity
as well as volcanic and magmatic activity).
The only explanation for this new
energy entering our solar system would be one of four
possibilities as far as my research seems to suggest.
A large influx in potential
energy coming from the swarming of comets in ... our Solar
system and imparting massive amounts of energy (though this
would have to be a huge number of comets as I don't believe
they can account for the sheer amounts of new energy
bombarding our planet system if unless their numbers are
A massive upsurge in activity
from the Sun (although as I'm aware we are now in somewhat
of a solar minimum according to the experts I've been
reading up on).
A previously unknown or
undeclared sister star to our own sun bringing a whole gamut
of of gravitational wave anomalies and energies (which I
don't think we have experienced for a very long time in this
area of the cosmos).
The Wave phenomenon that is
talked about in the Wave series of books on site and maybe
being affected by "the ripples in the pond" so to speak.
Maybe some scientists can claim
ignorance of the objective and easily seen facts as they are
[subjected to] social programming or [are] pressured or coerced
into looking in different areas for lack of funding in these
distinct areas of research.
However I do believe that there is some level of knowledge about
the effects of the coming Wave, comets and companion star in the
scientific community, or at least those who are knowingly
working for "The Man Behind the Curtain".
I say this due to the large number of
bunkers and underground
bases that have been found and talked about over the past few
decades. If the powers that be were really in the dark, then why
would they make such a concerted effort to hide the truth and to
build these types of structures to hide out in when the sky
comes crashing down around them. I think they have a good idea
what this all means for us here on the Big Blue Marble, and that
it may be part of a greater plan to program the masses into
thinking us humans are responsible for all of this. ...
That may sound to some like a very absurd thought I know, but it
would explain all this programming vis-a-vis the MSM about how
we are all at fault for not doing enough to save our planet. ...
Does anyone have any other theories on why there is so much of a
hullabaloo being made about human induced global warming?
I responded to these comments as
Well, let's face it, back before
911, we were just having a good time on Saturday nights drinking
coffee and eating cookies and chatting with the C's about this
stuff; it wasn't real, it was all just theoretical. Of course we
were pretty sure that dark and ugly deeds were being done behind
the scenes, there was enough evidence for it; but the scenario
the C's presented - that things would be like they were in Nazi
Germany, only globally, was just "out there."
I don't think anybody was able to really imagine how we would
get from there... to here.
But we sure
know NOW how they did it: 9/11. It was all over in a
couple of hours, all the rest is just detail.
I think the rest of the stuff is going to be like that. One day
it will all be theoretical and we will have no idea HOW it could
possibly get from here to there, and then the next day, we will
C's said "sudden glacial rebound..." Nobody seems to be thinking
about that. They just talk about it getting hotter and hotter.
Well, what if hotter just precedes suddenly colder? I think of
the mammoth in Siberia that was found with undigested buttercups
in its stomach. It was flash frozen almost instantly.
The thing is, the evidence that it has happened (and more than
once) is available all around us not only in the geological and
archaeological record, but also in myths and legends. But for
most people, it is so easy to just brush all that off and
interpret it bass-ackwards, and that's what they do. The problem
is, I don't believe that the "experts" are that stupid.
Meanwhile, the C's tell us stuff - no hard dates because there
are too many variables and the future IS open - and it happens
just as they say, so we get the idea that the rest of it is
probably going to happen also, we just don't know when.
We live in probably the most interesting times of the past 6
After that, the thread went quiet for
awhile until just the other day when another forum member, Lynne,
posted a follow-up:
There is a man, named
a former architect, that has been researching the ice age cycle,
full time, since 1991. He claims that an ice age could start at
any time. He cites the fact that as the ice melts at the poles
the fresh water mixes with the salt water of the oceans. This
can stop the Gulf Stream from flowing as far north as it does
now. If that happens, the temperate climate being experienced by
the northern latitudes would be gone and an ice age would start.
Of course, I am just remembering this from what I heard on a
radio show. There is, naturally, a lot more to it than that.
And he keeps repeating,
"It's a cycle, it's a cycle, it's a
So maybe he is on to the same thing that the C's were
So there is at least one [other] person going with this idea,
and I think I have heard other comments here and there about it,
After reading the post, I decided to
check the "iceagenow" link just to see what it was all about. I
didn't know I was going to uncover an odd mystery.
The first thing I found was the
Global-warming skeptics continue to punch
The Washington Post
June 05, 2006
WASHINGTON - It should be glorious to be Bill Gray, professor
emeritus. He's the guy who predicts the number of hurricanes
that will form during the coming tropical-storm season. He works
in the atmospheric-science department of Colorado State
University. He's mentored dozens of scientists.
But he's also outraged.
Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put
his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research
going. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says,
that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they
were afraid to admit.
Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.
Actually, that is not exactly what Bill
Gray is saying. He is only saying that it is a hoax the way it is
He has testified about this to the
U.S. Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches,
done everything he could to get the message out.
"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard,
and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've
been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a
baby-boomer, yuppie thing."
Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical
models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers
aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.
"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've
flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection,
cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think
anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions
better than me."
In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will
begin to cool again.
Ice everywhere in
3, 5 or 8 years, minimum?
He is almost desperate to be heard.
His time is short. He is 76 years old.
Now, notice that this Washington Times
reporter writes so casually "the world will begin to cool again," as
though he was talking about a fresh breeze that wafts gently over
the sweat beaded forehead. If that is the case, if it is just a
breeze, why is Bill Gray so desperate to be heard? Why has he spent
100 K of his own money on his research?
Well, let's continue with the article:
The case for warming
Human beings are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,
warming the planet in the process.
Since the dawn of the industrial era, atmospheric carbon dioxide
has risen from about 280 to about 380 parts per million. In the
past century, the average surface temperature of Earth has
warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Much of that warming has been
in the past three decades.
Regional effects can be more dramatic: The Arctic is melting at
an alarming rate. Arctic sea ice is 40 percent thinner than it
was in the 1970s. Glaciers in Greenland are speeding up as they
slide toward the sea. A recent report shows
Antarctica losing as
much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year.
The permafrost is melting across broad swaths of Alaska, Canada
and Siberia. Tree-devouring beetles, common in the American
Southwest, are suddenly ravaging the evergreens of British
Columbia. Coral reefs are bleaching, scalded by overheated
tropical waters. There appear to have been more strong
hurricanes and cyclones in recent decades.
The 1990s were the warmest decade on record. The year 1998 set
the all-time mark. This decade is on its way to setting a new
standard. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), a global effort involving hundreds of climate
scientists, projected in 2001 that, depending on the rate of
greenhouse-gas emissions and general climate sensitivities, the
global average temperature would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees
Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100. Sea levels could rise just a
few inches, or nearly three feet.
All of the above is part of the emerging, solidifying scientific
consensus on global warming.
Now, notice that, in the above scenario,
we have some definite problems laid out - but most of it will happen
gradually, and we have about 90 years to see it all play out: until
2100. It's all rather "iffy," too, even if they are certain that
things are going to warm up.
Now the journalist goes on the attack:
The skeptics' view
When you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself
on a parallel Earth.
It is a planet where global warming isn't happening - or, if it
is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it
is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big
problem. And, even if it is a big problem, we can't
realistically do anything about it other than adapt.
Only in the last sentence does this
journalist come anywhere close to the truth. But notice how cleverly
he has concealed the problem?
There is no consensus on global
warming, they say. There is only abundant uncertainty. The IPCC
process is a sham, a mechanism for turning vague scientific
statements into headline-grabbing alarmism. Drastic actions such
as mandated cuts in carbon emissions would be imprudent.
More twisting and distortion.
Alternative sources of energy are
fine, they say, but let's not be naive. We are an
energy-intensive civilization. To obtain the kind of energy we
need, we must burn fossil fuels. We must emit carbon. That's the
Well, in this sense, the journalist is
repeating the view taken by the Bush Reich Science which has little
or nothing at all to do with the real science!
Interesting how he
mixes it all together.
Since the late 1980s, when oil, gas,
coal, auto and chemical companies formed the Global Climate
Coalition, industries have poured millions of dollars into a
campaign to discredit the emerging global-warming consensus. The
coalition disbanded a few years ago, but the skeptic community
Many skeptics work in think tanks, such as the George C.
Marshall Institute or the National Center for Policy Analysis.
They have the ear of leaders in the White House and on Capitol
Hill. The skeptics helped scuttle any possibility that the
United States would ratify the Kyoto treaty that would have
committed the nation to cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.
(Conservatives object to the treaty for, among other things, not
requiring reductions by developing nations such as China and
Notice how this journalist has lumped
the scientists in with the political skeptics as though they were
all saying the same thing. They are not, and that is what this is
all about. There is a huge difference between saying that "Global
Warming as it is being presented to the public is a hoax" and "there
is no Global Warming."
There definitely IS Global Warming and Bill
Gray has never said that things weren't getting warmer.
The skeptics point to the
global-temperature graph for the past century. Notice how, after
rising steadily in the early 20th century, in 1940 the
temperature suddenly levels off. No - it goes down! For the next
If the planet is getting steadily warmer because of
Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when
industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the
start of World War II?
Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!
Sea-level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in
the Pacific and Indian oceans.
There are all these ... anomalies. [...]
Did you catch those last remarks?
journalist is quoting - out of context, I should add - several
results of scientific studies. But we are going to discover that
these admissions he has made above - that the Antarctic Ice was
getting THICKER and the sea-level is actually dropping - concern
information that is going to get very tricky!
Notice also that this article, quite critical of the "no global
warming" stance that has been taken by
the Bush Administration, was
published in the clearly Right-wing Washington Post, one of the most
Administration sychophantic rags on the market! What is up with
I also noticed that Robert Felix, the "iceagenow.com" guy, added a
comment about this article accusing the Post writer of being a
Unfortunately - and despicably -
this article, which supposedly reports the skeptics arguments,
now veers off to the left, accusing Dr. Gray of being on the
"fringe," and dismissing him and M.I.T. professor Richard Lindzen as being just simply part of the minority "Old Guard."
The article conveniently ignores the fact that 60 international
climate-change experts recently signed an open letter to
Canada's Prime Minister disavowing the "fact" of global warming.
Sometimes I think we've really lost the
idea of what the Right and the Left actually represent. Seems to me
that the terms have been severely ponerized and even have become
Anyway, next there is this from the iceagenow site:
I first published this forecast by
Dr. Landscheidt in 2003. However, with the recent reported
cooling of the Atlantic Ocean, and with the first reversed
sunspot of what may be the beginning of the next solar cycle,
and with Russian scientists predicting a new Little Ice Age, I
thought it would be an appropriate time to give more credit to
Dr. Landscheidt. He had been predicting this scenario for years.
Here's what Dr. Landscheidt had to
New Little Ice Age by 2030!
Analysis of the sun's activity in the last two millennia
indicates that, contrary to the IPCC's speculation about
man-made global warming, that we could be headed into a Maunder
minimum type of climate (a Little Ice Age).
The probability is high that the minima around 2030 and 2201
will go along with periods of cold climate comparable to the
nadir of the Little Ice Age, and La Niñas will be more frequent
and stronger than El Niños through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000).
We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast is
correct, however. A declining trend in solar activity and global
temperature should become manifest long before then. The current
11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity
seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as
it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades
ago. As to temperature, only El Nino periods should interrupt
the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less
frequent and strong.
The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of
2.3 since 1901 while global temperature on earth increased by
about 0.6°C. Energetic flares increased the Sun's ultraviolet
radiation by at least 16 percent. There is a clear connection
between solar eruptions and a strong rise in temperature.
Lake bottom cores from the Yukatan Peninsula covering more than
2,000 years show a similar correlation between recurrent
droughts and the Sun's eruptional activity. These results and
many earlier ones (Landscheidt, 1981-2001) document the
importance of the Sun's eruptional activity on climate.
Energetic solar eruptions do not accumulate around the sunspot
maximum. In most cycles they shun the maximum phase and can even
occur close to a sunspot minimum.
I (Landscheidt) have shown for decades that the sun's varying
activity is linked to cycles in its irregular oscillation about
the centre of mass of the solar system (the solar retrograde
cycle). As these cycles are connected with climate phenomena and
can be computed for centuries, they offer a means to forecast
phases of cool and warm climate.
Researchers need to take the sun seriously as a factor in
climate change, including warming, droughts, and cold snaps.
How the Ice Age
will affect North America
The C's, of course, say the same things:
that it is the Sun - and it's companion - that are mostly
responsible for Climate Change. To continue, Robert Felix writes:
I'm sorry to report that Dr. Theodor Landscheidt passed away on May 20, 2004. Founder of the
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Waldmuenchen, Germany, Dr. Landscheidt was a giant in the field
Here's what I published in 2003:
Dr. Landscheidt, author of "Sun
- Earth - Man: A Mesh of Cosmic Oscillations", and "Cosmic
Cybernetics: The Foundations of a Modern Astrology," based
his forecast on the Gleissberg cycle of solar activity.
"Contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global
warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years,"
said Landscheidt, "a long period of cool climate with its
coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected."
It can be seen," added Landscheidt, "that the Gleissberg
minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of
the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on
Earth." (Posted 19 Sep 2003)
This confirms what I've been saying
all along; that our climate is controlled by magnetic activity
on the sun.
It also makes my assertion that "we'll be admitting that we're
headed into an ice age by the year
2012" seem a lot more
Landscheidt's forecasts include the end of the great Sahelian
drought; the last five extremes in global temperature anomalies;
the last three El Niño; and the course of the last La Niña. He
predicted extreme River Po discharges beginning in October 2000,
some seven months before they began.
This forecast skill, says Landscheidt, solely based on solar
cycles, is irreconcilable with the IPCC's allegation that it is
unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the
latter half of the 20th century.
The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably
weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend,
especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion
cycles two decades ago.
This last surprised me. I was under the
impression that the last sunspot cycle was considerably stronger and
more active than predicted. Again, a forum member dug up some data.
You can read it HERE.
Anyway, let me continue. The main thing that grabbed my attention in
all of the above was the claim that the ice sheet on Antarctica was
actually growing since all we have heard via the media is "melting,
melting, melting". Along with this was the surprising claim that the
sea levels were falling instead of rising as was predicted by the
Global Warming Scenario. Where did these things come from? Sez who?
I went digging.
One of the first things I found was the following:
Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Balance
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006.
Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.
What was done
The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing
satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of
the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in
their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51%
of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72%
of the grounded ice sheet.""
What was learned
Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for
isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm
year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however,
"requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes
have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of
regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that
"72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a
sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08
This net extraction of water from the global ocean,
according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from
accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and
within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from
What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global
warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading
to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide,
the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that
forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently
prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically
describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two
millennia or more.
8 November 2006
Notice the date: last November. Notice
what it says: the Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing!!! What's
more, it is doing this at the expense of the global sea level! Aside
from the fact that all we are hearing is "melting ice! melting
ice!", how can the ice sheet be growing if it is getting hotter? And
we ALL KNOW IT IS! So, how can this be?
Well, there's an answer:
Global warming boost to glaciers
Global warming could be causing some glaciers to grow, a new
Researchers at Newcastle University
looked at temperature trends in the western Himalaya over the
past century. They found warmer winters and cooler summers,
combined with more snow and rainfall, could be causing some
mountain glaciers to increase in size. [...]
On the NASA website, I discovered that
the scientists there have been mapping this for some time now. The
data is published, it's just not promoted actively. And, in many
cases, it is phrased so that the important factors are minimized, if
not actually buried..
Antarctic Temperature Trend 1982-2004
Cold, snowy, and stuck at the "bottom of the Earth, Antarctica
might seem like a dull place. But this big continent can produce
a surprisingly dynamic range of conditions. One example of this
range is temperature trends.
Although Antarctica warmed around
the perimeter from 1982 to 2004, where huge icebergs calved and
some ice shelves disintegrated, it cooled closer to the pole.
See how much of Antarctica is colder and how little is actually
This image shows trends in skin
temperatures-temperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the
land or sea surface-not air temperatures. The data were
collected by the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)
sensors that were flown on several National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites.
The data come from
the AVHRR's thermal infrared channel-a portion of the light
spectrum we can sense as heat but that human eyes cannot see.
This image shows temperature trends for the icy continent from
1982 to 2004. Red indicates areas where temperatures generally
increased during that period, and blue shows where temperatures
The area of strongest cooling appears at the South Pole, and the
region of strongest warming lies along the Antarctic Peninsula.
In some instances, bright red spots or streaks along the edge of
the continent show where icebergs calved or ice shelves
disintegrated, meaning the satellite began seeing warmer ocean
water where there had previously been ice.
One example of this
is the bright red line along the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf.
Why is Antarctica getting colder in
the middle when it's warming up around the edge?
One possible explanation is that the warmer temperatures in the
surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the
continent's interior, and this increased snowfall has cooled the
high-altitude region around the pole. Another possible
explanation involves ozone. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere
absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and absorbing this energy warms
Loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the
stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of
spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an
atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving
in to the continent's interior. A stronger polar vortex might
explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.
Then, from Nature.com comes a piece that
gives an excellent example of talking out of both sides of the mouth
Increased snowfall could slow sea-level
by Mark Peplow
19 May 2005
Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening
the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by
A satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East
Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice -
enough to reduce the oceans' rise by 0.12 millimeters per year.
The ice sheets that cover Antarctica's bedrock are several
kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's
ice. But scientists fear that if they melt in substantial
quantities, this will swell the oceans and cause devastation on
islands and coastal lands.
Notice how they give with one hand and
take with the other:
Never mind that they have
just said that the East Antarctic ice sheet gained 45 billion tons
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that sea level is currently
rising at about 1.8 millimeters per year, largely through
melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as a result of
global warming. But the panel also expected that climate change
would trigger an increase in snowfall over the Antarctic
continent, as increased evaporation from the oceans puts more
moisture into the air.
"This is a phenomenal piece of research, but it is what we
expected, " comments David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the
British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. "These effects have
been predicted for a long time, it's just that no one has
measured them before."
Although the results of the satellite survey are in line with
the predictions of global-warming models, the thickening of the
ice sheet could still be explained by natural weather
variability, warns Curt Davis of the University of Missouri,
Columbia, a member of the research team.
He and his colleagues
present their results in the online edition of Science.
The team used data from the European Space Agency's radar
satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, which measured changes in altitude
over about 70% of Antarctica's interior - more than 8.5 million
square kilometers, roughly the same size as the United States.
East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8
centimeters per year over the time period studied, the
researchers discovered. The region comprises about 75% of
Antarctica's total land area - but as its ice is thicker, it
carries about 85% of the total ice volume.
"It is the only large
terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing
it," says Davis.
On top of an
In contrast, smaller West Antarctica
showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimeters per year.
amazing that they can measure such small changes," says Vaughan.
Yeah, it sure is amazing. And notice
how, just above, the "small changes" are supposed to be responsible
for the reported rise of the sea levels by 1.8 millimeters per year.
I think we just caught them in a lie.
But we'll come to that.
The thickening of the eastern ice sheet should not be seen as a
long-term protection against a rise in sea level, warns Vaughan.
Glaciers in West Antarctica are accelerating, releasing more and
more icebergs into the sea. And the Antarctic Peninsula, which
stretches towards South America, now regularly hits temperatures
above 0 °C in the summer, leading to direct melting of the ice
The reader should already understand how
totally absurd the above remarks are. If you don't, you soon will.
What's more, snowfall over East
Antarctica will not continue to increase indefinitely in a
warming world, Vaughan adds. Conversely, every extra degree of
temperature rise will continue to accelerate glaciers and cause
more melting on the western side of Antarctica, swelling the
world's oceans further.
Notice above that, even though they say
that increased warming increases precipitation (snowfall), that
somehow, there is a "cut-off point"??!! That it will not increase
Where is the logic here?
Scientists have already estimated
that Antarctic melting may be responsible for up to a third of
the overall sea-level rise. But the instruments on ERS-1 and 2
only work over very flat areas, and tend to lose track of the
radar echo over steeper areas around the continent's coast, so a
vital piece of the puzzle is still missing, says Vaughan. And
because Antarctica is so vast, it is also impossible to measure
snowfall comprehensively on the ground, he adds.
However, the European Space Agency satellite CryoSat, due to be
launched later this year, should be able to make very accurate
altitude measurements around the coast, providing evidence of
exactly how much ice is being lost there. Only when scientists
put all these measurements together will the full truth about
Antarctica's ice become clear, says Vaughan.
Notice how the above article is not just
a "spin" on the situation, but seems to contain outright lies -
direct contradictions of other facts already presented. Notice also
the remark about the coming CryoSat. This did not initially grab my
attention. It was only after I continued to dig that this remark
about the possibility of knowing the truth about Antarctica's ice
became important - and even scary!
The next item directly contradicted the above article's claims about
the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. It was posted, in part, on
the iceagenow website.
Greenland icecap growing thicker
20 Oct 2005 - Greenland 's ice-cap has thickened slightly in
recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw, scientists said
today. Satellite measurements show that more snowfall is
thickening the ice-cap, especially at high altitudes, according
to the report in the journal Science.
"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5
cms (1.9 inches) a year or 54 cms (21.26 inches) over 11 years,"
according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S.
institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center
for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway.
See more of this article
HERE. See also
This is where things began to get very
squirrelly. The first link is to a Reuters article which, for some
reason, has completely disappeared. I mean, there's not even a
Google cache of it. Nothing.
The second link is to a CNN report on the Reuters article. It also
has disappeared. Go ahead, click the links...
Doing a search for the articles missing from Reuters and CNN I found
October 23, 2005
Greenland ice cap thickens slightly
Thought you'd like this one:
Greenland's ice cap has thickened slightly in recent years
despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming,
a team of scientists said on Thursday.
Read more from this blogger:
Greenland ice cap thickens slightly
The last link is to "newsclipping.co.uk".
Wow! It looked like I might actually find the whole article!
The page you are looking for does not exist; it may have been
moved, or removed altogether. You might want to try the search
function. Alternatively, return to the front page.
Greenland ice cap thickens
October 24, 2005;
Posted: 10:41 a.m. EDT
OSLO, Norway (Reuters) — Greenland’s ice cap has
thickened slightly in recent years despite wide
predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a
team of scientists said on Thursday.
The 9,842-feet thick ice cap is a key concern in debates
about climate change because a total melt would raise
world sea levels by about 7 meters. And a runaway thaw
might slow the Gulf Stream that keeps the North Atlantic
But satellite measurements showed that more snow was
falling and thickening the ice cap, especially at high
altitudes, according to the report in the journal
Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because
of a warming climate, making many other scientists
believe the entire ice cap was thinning.
“The overall ice
thickness changes are … approximately plus 1.9
inches a year or 21.26 inches over 11 years,”
according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and
U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn
Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and
Operational Oceanography in Norway.
However, they said that
the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global
warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of
heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power
plants, factories and cars.
Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can
carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow
below 32 Fahrenheit.
And the scientists said that the thickening of the
ice-cap might be offset by a melting of glaciers around
the fringes of Greenland. Satellite data was not good
enough to measure the melt nearer sea level.
Most models of global warming indicate that the
Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if
Oceans would rise by about 70 meters if the far bigger
ice-cap on Antarctica melted along with Greenland.
Antarctica’s vast size acts as a deep freeze likely to
slow any melt of the southern continent.
The panel that advises the United Nations has predicted
that global sea levels might rise by almost a meter by
2100 because of a warming climate.
Such a rise would swamp low-lying Pacific islands and
warming could trigger more hurricanes, droughts, spread
deserts and drive thousands of species to extinction.
Still, a separate study in Science on Thursday said sea
levels were probably rising slightly because of a melt
of ice sheets.
“Ice sheets now appear
to be contributing modestly to sea level rise
because warming has increased mass loss from coastal
areas more than warming has increased mass gain from
enhanced snowfall in cold central regions,” it said.
“Greenland presently makes the largest contribution
to sea level rise,” according to the report by
scientists led by Richard Alley of Pennsylvania
State University in the United States.
Copyright 2005 Reuters.
It really bugs me when I think somebody
is hiding something. I know it might be "conspiracy minded" of me,
but I can't get over the feeling that there is an attempt to
sideline or seriously minimize particular (and important)
I was, finally, able to read the original article. Go
HERE to read a
version of the Science Journal article which one of our forum
members obtained and posted.
Another forum member found a copy of the article on an Australian
Funny that this didn't show up on Google
when I was searching!!
Greenland icecap thickens despite
Friday, 21 October 2005
Greenland's icecap has thickened slightly in recent years
despite concerns that it is thawing out due to global warming,
says an international team of scientists.
A team led by Professor Ola Johannessen, at the
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing
Center in Norway, report their findings online ahead
of print publication in the journal Science.
The 3,000-metre thick Greenland icecap is a key concern in
debates about climate change because a total melt would raise
world sea levels by about 7 meters. And a runaway thaw might
slow the Gulf Stream that keeps the North Atlantic region warm.
Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a
warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire
icecap is thinning.
But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall is falling
and thickening the icecap, especially at high altitudes, say
Johannessen and team.
"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5
centimeters a year or 54 centimeters over 11 years."
But, they say, the thickening seems consistent with theories of
global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of
heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants,
factories and cars.
Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more
moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 0°C.
And the scientists say that the thickening of the icecap might
be offset by a melting of glaciers around the fringes of
Greenland. Satellite data is not good enough to measure the melt
nearer sea level.
So far, so good.
But then, the article veers off into the
disinformation that suggests that all we are going to have to deal
with is WARMING.
Most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice
might melt within thousands of years if warming continues.
Oceans would rise by about 70 meters if the far bigger icecap on
Antarctica melted along with Greenland.
Antarctica's vast size acts as a deep freeze likely to slow any
melt of the southern continent.
The panel that advises the United Nations has predicted that
global sea levels might rise by almost a meter by 2100 because
of a warming climate.
Such a rise would swamp low-lying Pacific islands and warming
could trigger more hurricanes, droughts, spread deserts and
drive thousands of species to extinction.
Separate study supports sea level rise due to ice melt
A separate study in today's issue of Science reports that sea
levels are probably rising slightly because of a melt of ice
"Ice sheets now appear to be contributing modestly to sea level
rise because warming has increased mass loss from coastal areas
more than warming has increased mass gain from enhanced snowfall
in cold central regions," the report by a team led by Professor
Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in the US says.
"Greenland presently makes the largest contribution to sea level
Yes, we know that Greenland is presently
melting like crazy around the edges. And that's the BIG problem as
we see from the following BBC special that was broadcast two years
Greenland glacier advancing 7.2
miles per year!
The BBC recently ran a documentary,
Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice age.
Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within
a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being
gradually cut off.
The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually
high for such a northerly latitude.
One of Greenland's largest glaciers
has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the
rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript
of the documentary, go to...
The Big Chill
What is important is that there IS a
heating up of the planet, a Global Warming, which is causing a lot
of ice to melt.
It is also causing a lot of evaporation which then
falls as snow in certain areas, and this put pressure on the ice
sheets and squeezes them outward so that they actually melt faster
around the edges. This adds a LOT of fresh water to the oceans. In
the Antarctic regions, it may not be so bad, but in the Arctic, it
is a building cataclysm.
The implications are so huge that it is really no wonder that
the Bush Reich and others of the ruling elite are trying to shush it up
and convince people that it's just going to get hotter and we all
have to make sacrifices to try to slow it down. As if! Bush is
certainly right when he goes his merry way acting as if Global
warming is nothing. He might as well because he, and the rest of
them, know that there is nothing that anyone can do about it to stop
That's a fact.
And so, they continue to do the one thing that
they believe will save their own skins: continue to follow the plan
of imposing total control over everyone and everything so that when
the disasters fall fast and hard - as they will - the masses will be
controllable. And it certainly doesn't hurt to kill of as many as
they can get away with killing in advance; that many fewer mouths to
feed, doncha know?
In short, the economic, political and national security implications
of sudden cataclysm are what is driving the political machine these
days. Britain is headed for a climate worse than Alaska's. And it
could be here sooner than anyone expects.
An ice age is one of the Great Forces of Nature. They are dynamic
and destructive. Massive glaciers form and begin to march across the
land destroying and grinding up everything in their path. They can
fill valleys, grind rocks to nothing and reduce the height of
mountains. They wipe the land clean. Vast stretches of the earth are
buried in a literal tomb of ice.
Preserved in the ice of Greenland is an ancient thermometer, a
record of the climate of the earth for a very long time. The ice
records traces of disasters and pollution, acids from volcanoes,
lead refining residue from Roman times, and so on. But most
important of all there is a record of the temperature which can be
read by determining how much heavy water is locked in the ice. The
rule is: the more heavy water, the warmer the climate.
And so, researchers obtained cores of the Greenland ice and began to
examine and analyze them. Based on the conventional rules about
climate change that are being promoted by the Global Warming due to
human activities, they should have seen slow changes in the heavy
water evidence in the ice cores as the world warmed and cooled.
But that's not what they found.
Instead, they found that temperatures can drop suddenly and
catastrophically. And it has happened many times.
The change can come as fast as turning off a light.
Professor Wally Broecker of Columbia University became convinced
that the driver was the ocean. Because of the profound climate
changes that had been recorded in Britain, Broecker focused on the
gulf stream. Britain's mild climate is due to the heat of the Gulf
Stream. Without the Gulf Stream, it would be like the frozen North
The Gulf Stream begins south of the equator and as it flows around
the gulf of Mexico it absorbs heat from the tropics which it then
carries with it North, to Britain. Scientists estimate that the Gulf
Stream carries the heat of a million power stations.
enables Brits to swim in waters at the same latitudes that Canada
has polar bears.
A diagram of the Gulf
Stream conveyor and related currents.
The most important thing about the Gulf
Stream is that, at the end of its journey North, it sinks.
because it cools and becomes denser. And once it cools and sinks,
the flowing continues, only in the other direction. In other words,
it is like a Global radiator, a constantly circulating flow of warm
water that carries the heat up to the northern latitudes.
sinking and flowing the other way is crucial.
This image shows how
England, Western Europe and Scandinavia are bathed in the heat of
the Gulf Stream
The question that Wally Broecker asked
"What would happen if this conveyor
Although many scientists had never
thought about this, and believed that the established currents of
the oceans never changed, other evidence was forthcoming that this
had happened - more than once. This evidence was found in mud core
samples from the bottom of the ocean. In other words, at various
times in the past the conveyor switched off. And when the conveyor
switched off, Britain - and the whole northern region that benefits
from the Gulf Stream - froze.
So, what does the shutting off of the conveyor have to do with
Climate experts are predicting temperatures to rise faster than at
any time since the last ice age. The models that scientists are
using (as described above), all suggest that in a hundred years,
we'll experience warming of about 1.5 to 6 degrees. The Earth hasn't
been that warm in hundreds of thousands - or millions - of years! We
can all see and feel the effects of global warming. Everyone is
talking about how to prepare for hotter weather and all the
For example, among the main topics covered by the "experts" are that
Global Warming will increase winter rains in Britain causing
flooding. There will be things like tropical cyclones much further
north. It is this sort of thing that the governments are preparing
people to consider and expect.
But all of these experts are not considering the factor that Global
Warming may very well be the switch that turns the conveyor - the
Gulf Stream - OFF.
Greenland is one of the biggest ice-cubes in the world. It consists
of enough water to raise the sea level by about six or seven meters
if it melted completely.
And indeed, it IS melting. The equivalent of fifty cubic kilometers
of ice and snow disappear from Greenland each year - around the
edges, that is. That is the same as fifty gigo-tons of water. And it
is accelerating. Less than five years ago, one of the Greenland
glaciers was moving at about six, seven kilometers per year. And
that was more or less in balance with the snowfall. Now in the five
years since then the speed is almost doubled. It was advancing at 12
kilometers per year in 2003. In 2005, it was moving 15 kilometers
per year. And certainly, the increase is due to "Global Warming."
The problem is that the increase means that a hundred cubic
kilometers of fresh water is being dumped into the ocean per year
and that fresh water is flowing towards the sinking zone of the
Wally Broecker and his associates began to wonder just what could be
the effect of all that fresh water on the conveyor.
They began to
realize that because the conveyor was driven by the salty water
sinking, too much fresh water would dilute the salt and if the salt
was diluted too much the conveyor would not sink. The possibility is
that a 1 percent change in the salinity of the water - at the moment
that point is reached - could tip the balance; the water would be
too fresh to sink and the conveyor - the Gulf Stream - would stop.
Just like that.
Gulf Stream Temps and
What's worse is that it isn't just the
Greenland ice sheet that is pouring fresh water into the ocean where
the conveyer sinks and reverses direction: Global warming leads to a
wetter world because warm air holds more moisture. When that
moisture heads north and cools, there will be more rain.
And if that
rain accompanies a big system such as a hurricane, it can be a very
great amount indeed!
At the same time, there are some very big rivers in Siberia dumping
fresh water into the polar regions. If those rivers increase in size
due to increased rainfall in Siberia, there can be an increase in
annual discharge of a hundred and twenty eight cubic kilometers of
fresh water per year.
With the current rate at which the atmosphere
is heating, we are facing a horrifying prospect of a fifty percent
increase in some of the world's biggest rivers.
A "vast wall of
fresh water will soon come flooding through northern Siberia. An
extra thousand cubic kilometers a year more could flow in to the
salty waters of the conveyor."
Dr. Bill Turrell has been monitoring the saltiness of the Gulf
Stream as it flows past the Faro Isles north of Scotland. If the
saltiness of the water decreases, that is a sign that the driver of
the conveyor is weakening.
Until the 1970s the salinity had been almost constant. But then it
began to drop.
Dr. Bill Turrell tells us:
"After the late seventies we began
to see a freshening of the bottom water. So much so that we, we
began to doubt our own results. We took further samples, we
checked with other countries who are sampling the same water,
until eventually we became convinced that this change was
Turrell had measured the fact that the
flow of the Gulf Stream return had fallen by a massive twenty
Now we really do know that fresh
water input to the Arctic is increasing. The Siberian rivers are
pumping out more fresh water. The Arctic ice sheets are melting
and there is more release of fresh water. It, it's the most
fundamental change I've observed in my career.
In short, the process that could shut
off the Gulf Stream conveyor began in the 1970s. No one knows where
the absolute shut-off point is. We only know we are getting closer
day by day.
Let's recap the facts.
Science indicates that a shut off of the Gulf
Stream is closely connected to ice ages. The mechanism of the
conveyor function of the Gulf Stream is generally understood and the
effect of fresh water on same is theorized - with strong evidence.
We know that the temperature of the Earth is increasing and that
this is increasing the amount of moisture in the air, general
precipitation, as well as the zone of precipitation.
This is dumping
the fresh water into the zone of conveyor return. Measurements have
been taken showing that the salinity of the ocean in the critical
area is decreasing. So it is safe to say that it is a certainty that
the result will be a shutting off of the Gulf Stream conveyer
resulting in an ice age. You can pretty well take that to the bank.
The remaining two questions are: when? and how bad will it be?
The scientists analyzing the data can only say that the implications
are huge, the results will be catastrophic, but we we will come back
to this soon enough. For now, let us continue with the little
discoveries I was making as I dug into the issues.
Notice that all the information about the anomalies in the
melting/growing ice problem are coming from European sources. The
articles on Reuters and CNN about the anomalous increase of ice in
the center of Greenland and Antarctica were scrubbed from the U.S.
This brings us back to the CryoSat
issue. Remember in the article above entitled "East Antarctica puts
on weight," there is the following remark:
However, the European Space Agency
satellite CryoSat, due to be launched later this year, should be
able to make very accurate altitude measurements around the
coast, providing evidence of exactly how much ice is being lost
there. Only when scientists put all these measurements together
will the full truth about Antarctica's ice become clear...
Now, read the excerpts of the following
Earth - melting in the heat?
BBC News website
Predictions vary from the catastrophic to the cataclysmic.
Glaciers are melting, the ice caps disappearing into the oceans.
Sea levels may rise by many meters as a consequence.
Indigenous Arctic peoples will find their food stocks gone,
while fresh water supplies in Asia and south America will
disappear as the glaciers which provide them melt away;
penguins, polar bears and seals will find their habitats gone,
their traditional lives unlivable.
But how realistic is this picture? Is the world's ice really
disappearing, or is it unscientific hot air?
A European satellite named CryoSat was designed to provide
definitive answers to some of these questions.
A launcher fault destroyed the mission in October 2005, but the
European Space Agency has approved a replacement. In the
meantime, here is our global snapshot.
Huge, pristine, dramatic,
unforgiving; the Antarctic is where the biggest of all global
changes could begin.
There is so much ice here that if it all melted, sea levels
globally would rise hugely - perhaps as much as 80 m. Say goodbye
to London, New York, Sydney, Bangkok, Rio... in fact, the
majority of the world's major cities.
But will it happen? Scientists divide the Antarctic into three
zones: the east and west Antarctic ice sheets; and the
Peninsula, the tongue of land which points up towards the
southern tip of South America.
"Everybody thinks that the
Antarctic is shrinking due to climate change, but the
reality is much more complex," says David Vaughan, a
principal investigator at the British Antarctic Survey in
"Parts of it appear to be thickening as a result of snowfall
increases. But the peninsula is thinning at an alarming rate
due to warming.
"The West Antarctic sheet is also thinning, and we're not
sure of the reason why."
On the up
Temperatures in the Peninsula
appear to be increasing at around twice the global average -
about 2°C over the last 50 years. Those figures are based on
measurements made by instruments at scientific stations.
Earlier this year, David Vaughan's group published research
showing that the vast majority of glaciers along the Peninsula -
87% of the 244 studied - are in retreat.
The ice dumped into the ocean as the glaciers retreat should not
make much difference to global sea levels - perhaps a few cm.
More worrying, potentially, are the vast ice sheets covering the
rest of Antarctica.
Making temperature measurements for the continent as a whole is
difficult; it is a vast place - more than 2,000km across - there
are few research stations, and temperatures vary naturally by
2-3C from year to year.
But measurements indicate that in the west, melting is underway.
"About one-third of the West
Antarctic ice sheet is thinning," says Dr Vaughan, "on
average by about 10cm per year, but in the worst places by
3-4m per year." [...]
And what of the big monster,
the much larger east Antarctic sheet?
A recent study using altimeter data suggested it is getting
thicker, by about 1.8 cm/yr; another, using the gravity satellite
mission Grace indicates its mass remains stable.
But could rising temperatures in time drain the ice away?
"It is not going to happen on
any realistic human timescale," says David Vaughan.
"It's so cold that you could raise temperatures by 5-10°C
without having much of an impact; it's on rock above sea
level, so warming in the ocean can't affect it."
Largely insulated from global trends
and so big as to generate its own climatic systems, most of
Antarctica appears to be immune to the big melt for now, though
answers to what is happening in the west are eagerly awaited.
At the top of the world, the
Arctic is a region built on water.
Around the North Pole is ocean, with ice floes crowding in each
winter and thinning again in the summers.
In September, we learned from scientists at the US National Snow
and Ice Data Center that the extent of ocean covered by ice is
getting smaller each year; the current rate of shrinkage they
calculate at around 8% per decade.
Their projection is that within about 60 years, there will be no
summer ice at all on the Arctic Ocean.
"Overall, the extent has been
declining, with some oscillations, since the 1970s when
satellites were able to map it," comments Peter Wadhams,
Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University, UK, and
currently at the Laboratoire Oceanographique in
"There's been a slow decline, but now the thinning appears
to be more rapid.
"In the last two decades, not only has the area shrunk but
the ice has got thinner by about 40%; the prediction is that
it will vanish altogether during summers in the second half
of this century."
Measurements of thickness
come mainly from military submarines, which spent long periods
under the Arctic ice during the Cold War.
Peter Wadhams was one of the scientists who afterwards persuaded
the authorities in Britain and the United States to de-classify
But as a method of measurement, it is far from perfect; and
satellites have given only limited help.
The existing satellite fleet gives good measurements of ice
extent, but is not so good at detecting thickness, partly
because the orbits of satellites with radar altimeters do not
cover every portion of the ocean.
This data deficit has led to a rival theory; that the ice is not
melting at all, it is simply piling up in another part of the
ocean, perhaps along the north Canadian coast. ...
Temperatures, meanwhile, show
a similar pattern to that seen along the Antarctic Peninsula; an
average warming of about 2°C in the last 50 years, about twice
the global average, albeit with significant variations between
different parts of the Arctic.
This is reflected in changes to ice cover on land as well as on
The Greenland ice sheet is, after Antarctica, the second biggest
expanse of ice in the world.
Its fringes expand and contract with the seasons; but images
show it is melting more each summer now than a decade ago.
In February 2006 researchers discovered glaciers in Greenland
were moving much faster than before, meaning that more of its
ice was entering the sea.
In 1996, Greenland was losing about 100 cubic km per year in
mass from its ice sheet; by 2005, this had increased to about
220 cubic km.
A complete melt of the ice sheet would cause a global sea level
rise of about 7m; but the current picture indicates that while
some regions are thinning, others are apparently getting
Notice that they are referring to the
Greenland Ice Sheet in this last remark about "getting thicker."
They fail to note that the most important factor is the massive
amount of fresh water being dumped into the ocean.
We now come back to the remark:
A European satellite named Cryosat
was designed to provide definitive answers to some of these
questions. A launcher fault destroyed the mission in October
Considering the disappearance of the
articles about Greenland on the U.S. controlled websites, this just
sort of gives me the willies. What do they mean a "launcher fault
destroyed the mission" ???
CryoSat crashes into the sea
8th October 2005
The European Space Agency's latest satellite has broken up and
crashed into the sea.
The 135 million euro satellite, called Cryosat, blasted off this
evening from Russia's Plesetsk Cosmodrome, aboard a modified
intercontinental ballistic missile, called Rockot. But it went
missing a couple of hours later, around the time it should have
shot into final orbit.
Cryosat was supposed to examine the effects of global warming on
the polar ice caps. Instead it did its own little bit for global
warming as it plunged into the icy Arctic Sea.
In a statement this evening, The European Space Agency said that
Russian authorities blamed the crash on "an anomaly in the
The second stage performed nominally until main engine cut-off
was to occur. Due to a missing command from the onboard flight
control system the main engine continued to operate until
depletion of the remaining fuel. As a consequence, the
separation of the second stage from upper stage did not occur.
Thus, the combined stack of the two stages and the CryoSat
satellite fell into the nominal drop zone north of Greenland
close to the North Pole into high seas with no consequences to
A joint Russian-ESA team will investigate the cause of failure
and expects to report back within a few weeks.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think
it is strange that the Cryosat crashed in the same month that the
Journal Science articles about the build-up of ice in Greenland sort
of disappeared from Reuters and CNN?
BBC gives an update on the crash:
Cryosat rocket fault laid bare
BBC News science reporter
27 October 2006
Russian space officials have identified the rocket fault that
led to the loss of Europe's Cryosat satellite. A problem with
the onboard flight-control system of the newly built upper stage
of the rocket was to blame.
The Russian state commission report clears the launcher for
future use. It was grounded on 8 October when the mission to map
the Earth's ice sheets fell into the ocean shortly after
lift-off from Plesetsk in Russia. The (135m euro) satellite was
riding atop a Rockot launch vehicle, a former military rocket
modified by the addition of a newly manufactured third stage.
The Russian Failure Investigation State Commission says a set of
measures is being implemented to prevent a recurrence of the
"We confirm from the information
we have from the State Commission that there was a problem
with the software flight-control system in the Breeze upper
stage of the launcher," European Space Agency spokesperson,
Simonetta Cheli, told the BBC News website.
"This problem led to a failure of the Breeze upper stage to
generate the command to shut down the second stage engine."
The error meant that separation of
the rocket's second and third stages did not occur, denying the
satellite the final boost it needed to reach orbit and causing
it to nosedive into the sea. A board set up by the rocket
operator, Eurockot, is to review the findings of the State
Commission next week.
The British scientist who proposed the mission, Prof Duncan Wingham, is calling for the spacecraft to be re-built.
So, it was a software flight control
problem; probably one of the easiest ways to sabotage a mission via
We next see that ESA is not giving up,
but the work may not be done in time based on all of the above
Workshop on Antarctic sea-ice highlights
need for CryoSat-2 mission
9 August 2006
Sea-ice thickness is an important parameter in modeling global
climate, and moreover, long-term changes are considered to be a
reliable indicator of climate change. However, estimates of
sea-ice thickness trends around Antarctica are currently very
limited. An international workshop held recently made it clear
that these essential data can only be obtained from satellite
missions such as CryoSat-2. [...]
Over the three-day event, which was held on 5 - 7 July 2006,
talks highlighted the fact that ice-thickness trends around
Antarctica are still largely unknown and that information on
seasonal, inter-annual and decadal thickness variations is very
ESA's ice mission CryoSat-2
The question of whether global climate change is causing the
polar ice caps to shrink is one of the most hotly debated
environmental issues we currently face. By monitoring precise
changes in the thickness of the polar ice sheets and floating
sea ice, CryoSat-2 aims to answer this question.
The go-ahead to build and launch the CryoSat-2 mission came in
February 2006 after the loss of the first CryoSat last October
due to a launch failure. The mission's objectives remain the
same as before - to measure ice thickness on both land and sea
very precisely to provide conclusive proof as to whether there a
trend towards diminishing polar ice cover, furthering our
understanding of the relationship between ice and global
climate. CryoSat-2 is due for launch in 2009.
It is now generally agreed that the Earth's atmosphere is
getting warmer, and although the impact of climate change is
expected to be amplified at the poles, it is extremely difficult
to predict what effect this is having on the polar ice cover. On
one hand, recent years have already seen record summer
reductions, in extent and concentrations, of sea ice in the
Arctic. In Antarctica, giant icebergs have calved and part of
the Larsen ice shelf has disintegrated.
However, on the other
hand, ships have recently been trapped for weeks in unusually
heavy Antarctic pack ice conditions. [...]
Ryan, the Australian forum member found
a couple more interesting pieces of this puzzle:
Considerations Over the Loss of
CryoSat ESA Satellite
On 8th October 2005, following a successful preparation of the
satellite by the joint ESA and industrial teams, the launch of
CryoSat satellite on board a Rockot launch vehicle ended in
failure. Due to an anomaly towards the end of the planned 2nd
stage operations and approximately five minutes after lift-off,
at a height of 230 km, the launch vehicle automatically
interrupted its mission and began to fall. The combination of
the re-entry heat and the explosion of the fuel tanks completely
destroyed CryoSat. Debris of the launch vehicle (2nd, 3rd stage)
and of the satellite impacted into the Arctic Ocean.
Formed in 1995, the launch services provider Eurockot Launch
Services GmbH, is a joint venture between EADS Space
Transportation (DE) and Krunichev (Russia) that provides
commercial launch services with the Rockot launch system to
operators of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites and operates from
launch facilities in Plesetsk Cosmodrome, northern Russia. [...]
The root cause of the CryoSat failure has been unambiguously
identified and corrective measures for Rockot's return-to-
flight are now under way. A Russian State Commission was
convened immediately after the accident. The conclusions of its
investigation work have been issued in a report including
subsequent recommendations, and its main conclusion is that
human error and not an inherent design flaw of the launch
vehicle caused the failure. [...]
This remark becomes even more
interesting when we read the ESA Chairman's introduction to the
A Word from the Chairman
Space Law Games
Some of you may well have seen the American film in which a
supercomputer takes control and directs the fighting between the
two superpowers, resulting in the annihilation of the armed
forces of the two opposing camps. It turns out that it's only a
game with the battle, entirely virtual, won by the computer,
which has been brilliantly programmed by a young boy.
any is needed, that games can be your downfall. ...
Next, let's look at what the Cassiopaeans had to say about all of this 10 years or so ago which
is now proving to be astonishingly accurate. And if their remarks
about the Global Climate changes have support in science, maybe we
ought to consider the other things they have said with a bit more
If you read the following in the context
of 9/11 and the Global Warming issue, it all begins to make sense.
22 Feb 97
Q: (Laura) Ok, we have several things that we discussed earlier,
is there anything you wish to say before we launch into
A: Underground bases see dramatic budget increase.
Q: (Laura) Ok, why do they have a budget increase?
A: Because there is much more activity to come.
Q: (Laura) Ok, what kind of activity?
A: Broad range.
Q: (Laura) Can you list, say, the top three?
A: Experimentation, utilization and implementation.
Q: (Laura & Terry) Of what?
A: Human "resources." Plan falling into place for "harvest."
Q: (Terry) The new underground bases, along with all the old
ones are for the coming harvest?
A: And other purposes of
STS forces' plans.
Q: (Terry) And other STS plans... (Laura) What is this thing
called 'The Harvest'?
A: What do you think?
Q: (Laura) Well, is that harvest in a negative event, or harvest
in a positive one? I mean, as in the harvesting of the wheat
and the tares...
Q: (Laura) Ok, now you say the plans are falling into place.
What specific events of the past, say, several weeks, or months,
whatever period of time set aside, are these plans that are
falling into place? I mean, what's the key in the lock?
A: Have you been paying attention, as we have always suggested
Q: (Laura) Of course! I just asked you because I wanted you to
enumerate! Of course I'm paying attention!
A: Lately, there has been diversion for you.
Q: (Laura) Well, it doesn't mean I'm asleep!
A: V*** mentioned the weather. Was that a bit "nippy" for you in
central Europe in December and January, Arkadiusz?
Here, I wonder if the "nippy" wasn't a
Q: (Terry) V*** mentioned the
weather, and the changes in it. What was the name of that movie
we watched up in Tallahassee, I forgot the name of it...
[Terry then spoke about a science fiction. Aliens were here
among us, and were plotting to affect the weather in such a way
as to make the planet uninhabitable for us, but perfect for
them. Naturally, there was secrecy and cover-ups. Then the
subject moved to the cell phone towers that were noted in rural
areas of North Florida. This then lead to a question about the
cell phone towers. First part of question lost.]
Q: (Terry)...transmit to us and back... what can be transmitted?
Can the negative energy be focused through these microwave
(V***) And what was the correlation between the strange weather
and the harvesting?
(Laura) Because we were told that the weather changes were due
to the energy buildup of the wave. That was two years ago. And
it had nothing to do with the 'harvest.'
(Terry) But it could also be that
HAARP adds to it.
(Jan) Ok, well, let's ask...
(Laura) Well, they would love for us to think that HAARP has
something to do with weather. 'Yes, we're having bizarre
weather. Let's blame it on HAARP!' because we're going to think
about HAARP... What a perfect...
(Terry) Well, HAARP has a lot more to do than just the weather.
They can put all the energy-based stuff that they've been
experimenting on in one place, because they can do whatever they
want, just by changing the frequencies...
(Jan) Or, even just continue to mess the weather up, to continue
to create negative vibrations, worry and uncertainty...
(V***) I guess the point I'm trying to get at is, are these
weather changes promoting some changes in the physical body,
that's making the physical body more 'harvestable?'
(Terry) Could very well be.
(Laura) Well, it's all interconnected, but I wouldn't say that
one is the cause of the other, just to say that they occur...
(Terry) But why, as we were talking about earlier, is all this
weird stuff going on all through the media?
A: We told you that "HAARP" was being designated for capturing
and modulating electromagnetic fields for the purpose of total
control of brainwave patterns in order to establish a system of
complete "order on the surface of the planet" in either 3rd or
Q: (Laura) Is HAARP in operation at the present time?
A: Yes, in its early stages.
Q: (Terry) Is the spreading of all these communication towers
out across the country the equivalent of a HAARP program on a
A: Back up system.
Q: (Laura) So, they don't need the towers to operate the HAARP
system, but they are there as the backup?
A: Towers serve dual and lateral purposes.
Q: (Terry) Local and regional authorities can use the towers to
track people, amongst other things.
(Laura) Is the weather being
controlled or changed or in any way affected by HAARP?
A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a
Q: (Laura) All right, I'll take the bait; give me the three
factors, and also the fourth!
A: 1) Wave approach. 2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in
atmosphere, thus affecting ozone layer. 3) Change in the
planet's axis rotation orientation. 4) Artificial tampering by
3rd and 4th density STS forces in a number of different ways.
Q: (Laura) All right, were those given in the order in which
they are occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming
A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the
rotation may not be reported while it is imperceptible except by
instrumentation. Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar
zones. But, this discrepancy is decreasing slowly currently. One
change to occur in 21st Century is sudden glacial rebound, over
Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages develop much, much,
much faster than thought.
[Discussion of new scientific theory recently presented that the
earth is expanding.]
Q: (Terry) Is the Earth expanding? That's just putting it
bluntly, but, is the Earth expanding, how did you put that?
(Ark) Yes, that's the theory: the idea is that the continents
move away because the Earth is expanding, and this is much
faster than you know, than geologists were thinking.
A: Continental "drift" is caused by the continual though
variable, propelling of gases from the interior to the surface,
mainly at points of magnetic significance.
Q: (Jan) What causes the change in the axis?
A: By slow down of rotation. Earth alternately heats up and
cools down in interior.
Q: (Laura) Why does it do that? What's the cause of this?
A: Part of cycle related to energy exerted upon surface by the
frequency resonance vibrational profile of humans and others.
Q: (Terry) Ok, let's go back to the beginning of the session,
when we were talking about the acceleration/expansion on
underground bases in preparation for the harvest. Is that
world-wide, we're talking here?
A: Yes, but United States is focus, due to particularly
cooperative power structure profile.
Q: (Terry) Do we want to ask about the power structure profile?
(Laura) No, we know what that is; they agreed to work with them.
But, what I would like to know is what particular steps are
being taken, what particular activities are being stepped up?
A: Acquisition, staging, testing of planned activity.
Q: (Laura) And what is the planned activity?
A: Control of absolutely everything.
Like I said earlier, when the C's were
talking about this sort of thing we simply could not even imagine
how such a scenario might be initiated and play out. It was all just
theoretical fun and games for us. We listened, took notes, and said,
basically, "yeah, right!"
That 9/11 could be planned and carried
out, and all that has followed it was simply out of the range of our
Q: (Laura) Well, swell!
That's the one world government! That's what they want!
OK, is there anything in particular that we can do to...
A: Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers. Awareness makes you
less vulnerable, both directly and indirectly. Heard anything
about synthetic blood, and blood and plasma alteration lately?
Q: (Laura) There's a can of worms for you! All right, I'll bite!
Go ahead, tell us about the synthetic blood and the blood
A: Less "mutes" needed.
Q: (Laura) Cattle Mutilations. They don't need as many cattle
Bio and cyber/genetic humanoid types now increasing
exponentially in general population. You may have already
encountered one or two during the past 10 days.
Q: (Laura) You, who? You, as in me, you as in F***, who?
A: Reflect upon activities, and power and influence centers for
It took us another 5 years to figure
that one out: psychopaths, and then later,
ponerology. This next
exchange gives some additional clues and insight:
9 May 1998
Q: ... I would like to know what the geographic coordinates,
according to our current grid system, that would frame
I don't need the exact shape, just a general box shape... the
A: Like asking: "What are the geographic coordinates of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization?"
Q: Okay, let me get more specific: the Atlantean land that was
supposed to have existed in the Atlantic Ocean... what was the
farthest north of any any part of Atlantis that was in the
ocean, that no longer exists?
A: It is "time for you" to know that Atlantis was not a nation,
land, Island, or continent, but rather, a civilization!
Q: All I wanted was to have an idea of a land mass in the
Atlantic ocean that people talk about - where did it sit?
A: Where do you think?
Q: Well, I sort of think that the Azores and the Canary Islands
are sort of...
A: Yes, but many other places too. Remember, the sea level was
several hundred feet lower then...
Q: Why was the sea level several hundred feet lower? Because
there was ice somewhere or because there was not as much water
on the earth at that time?
Q: Was the ice piled up at the poles? The ice sheet of the ice
Q: So, Atlantis existed during the ice age?
A: Largely, yes. And the world's climate was scarcely any colder
away from the ice sheets than it is today.
The World during
the Ice Age
Q: Well, how could that be? What
caused these glaciers?
A: Global warming.
Q: How does global warming cause glaciers?
A: Increases precipitation dramatically. Then moves the belt of
great precipitation much farther north. This causes rapid
buildup of ice sheets, followed by increasingly rapid and
intense glacial rebound.
So, let's put those two things together:
How does global warming cause glaciers and lead to an Ice age?
dramatically. Then moves the belt of great precipitation much
farther north. This causes rapid buildup of ice sheets, followed
by increasingly rapid and intense glacial rebound. ...
change to occur in 21st Century is sudden glacial rebound, over
Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages develop much, much,
much faster than thought.
There is, of course, those two worrying
questions to consider: how fast and how bad can it be?
Just the other day we published a news item on SOTT that read, in
Over 4.5 Billion people could die
from Global Warming-related causes by 2012
A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says
that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a
feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also
known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to
further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.
In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of
methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the
released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a
couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the
atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.
By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific
theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming
scientists. I suggest you Google the term.
There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost
and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates.
The methane in Arctic permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400
Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2,
and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of
the gas. [...]
Releases of methane from melting oceanic clathrates have caused
severe environmental impacts in the past. The methane in oceanic
clathrates has been estimated at 10,000 billion tons.
55 million years ago a global warming chain reaction (probably
started by volcanic activity) melted oceanic clathrates. It was
one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events in
Meanwhile, a strong natural gas odor was
reported a few days ago in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Jersey City,
Weehawken, and Newark.
As Wayne Madsen pointed out, last August, a
similar unexplained gas odor sent people to the hospital in Staten
Island and Queens. Although methane is odorless, natural methane
venting is often accompanied by the venting of acrid hydrogen
sulfide, a byproduct of bacterial decomposition.
One does, of
course, wonder about outgassings in relation to flocks of dead birds
falling to the ground as also happened at the same time as the
horrible smells in the Northeast, though the bird kills were in
other locations. Then there are also fish kills that have no other
explanation that could be a result of underwater outgassing...
Methane can be deadly in other ways, too since it is highly
flammable. The following is about a different type of gas, but one
must consider the consequences if the gas in question had been
THE LAKE NYOS GAS EXPLOSION,
Lake Nyos is one of only three lakes in the world known to be
saturated with carbon dioxide - the others are Lake Monoun,
also in Cameroon about 100 km away, and Lake Kivu in Rwanda.
magma chamber beneath the region is an abundant source of carbon
dioxide, which seeps up through the lake bed, charging the
waters of Lake Nyos with an estimated 90 million tonnes of CO2.
Lake Nyos is thermally stratified, with layers of warm, less
dense water near the surface floating on the colder, denser
water layers near the lake's bottom. Over long periods, carbon
dioxide gas seeping into the cold water at the lake's bottom is
dissolved in great amounts.
Most of the time, the lake is stable and the CO2 remains in
solution in the lower layers. However, over time the water
becomes supersaturated, and if an event such as an earthquake or
volcanic eruption occurs, large amounts of CO2 may suddenly come
out of solution.
Although a sudden outgassing of CO2 had occurred at Lake Monoun
in 1984, killing 37 local residents, a similar threat from Lake
Nyos was not anticipated. However, on August 21, 1986, a limnic
eruption occurred at Lake Nyos which triggered the sudden
release of about 1.6 million tonnes of CO2.
The gas rushed down
two nearby valleys, displacing all the air and suffocating up to
1,800 people within 20 km of the lake, mostly rural villagers,
as well as 3,500 livestock. About 4,000 inhabitants fled the
area, and many of these developed respiratory problems, burns,
and paralysis as a result of the gases.
It is not known what triggered the catastrophic outgassing. Most
geologists suspect a landslide, but some believe that a small
volcanic eruption may have occurred on the bed of the lake. A
third possibility is that cool rainwater falling on one side of
the lake triggered the overturn. Whatever the cause, the event
resulted in the rapid mixing of the supersaturated deep water
with the upper layers of the lake, where the reduced pressure
allowed the stored CO2 to effervesce out of solution.
It is believed that up to a cubic kilometer of gas was released.
Because CO2 is denser than air, the gas flowed off the
mountainous flank in which Lake Nyos rests and down two
adjoining valleys in a layer tens of meters deep, displacing the
air and suffocating all the people and animals before it could
The normally blue waters of the lake turned a deep
red after the outgassing, due to iron-rich water from the deep
rising to the surface and being oxidized by the air. The level
of the lake dropped by about a meter, representing the volume of
The outgassing probably also caused an overflow of
the waters of the lake. Trees near the lake were knocked down.
As it happens, the claim in the above
article "By the way, the 'hydrate hypothesis' is a weeks old
scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming
scientists. I suggest you Google the term" is not entirely correct.
John Barnes, in his fiction novel, "Mother of Storms," described the
release of vast quantities of methane as the trigger for a global superstorm that nearly destroys the earth.
Mother of Storms takes place about
thirty years from now.
The UN has become dominant and at the
start of the book the US President is maneuvering desperately to
avoid losing any more sovereignty to the UN. The UN undertakes a
nuclear strike against the Siberian Republic's secret - and
illegal - nuclear weapons caches buried in the Arctic seabed.
explosions result in the release of huge amount of methane from
the methane clathrates buried there. The methane causes a
near-runaway greenhouse effect with global temperatures going up
by 10 degrees F in a matter of months.
The hot, wet oceans are perfect breeding grounds for hurricanes
which rapidly develop into storms of unprecedented strength,
duration and number.
Obviously, if such a scenario were to
play out at present, the roles would be reversed to what Barnes
imagined: it would be the U.S. undertaking a nuclear strike that
unleashes the methane that triggers the Global Superstorm.
probably only be in such a manner that enough methane would be
released fast enough to make such an impact.
Methane hydrates and global warming
There is an enormous amount of methane (CH4) on earth
frozen into a type of ice called methane hydrate. Hydrates can
form with almost any gas and consist of a 'cage' of water
molecules surrounding the gas. (The term 'clathrate' more
generally describes solids consisting of gases are trapped
within any kind of cage while hydrate is the specific term for
when the cage is made of water molecules).
There are CO2
hydrates on Mars, while on Earth most of the hydrates are filled
with methane. Most of these are in sediments of the ocean, but
some are associated with permafrost soils.
Methane hydrates would seem intuitively to be the most
precarious of things. Methane hydrate melts if it gets too warm,
and it floats in water. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas,
and it degrades to CO2, another greenhouse gas which accumulates
in the atmosphere just as fossil fuel CO2 does. And there is a
lot of it, possibly more than the traditional fossil fuel
Conceivably, climate changes could affect these
deposits. So what do we know of the disaster-movie potential of
the methane hydrates? [...]
The juiciest disaster-movie scenario would be a
release of enough methane to significantly change the
atmospheric concentration, on a time scale that is fast compared
with the lifetime of methane. This would generate a spike in
methane concentration. For a scale of how much would be a large
methane release, the amount of methane that would be required to
equal the radiative forcing of doubled CO2 would be about ten
times the present methane concentration. That would be disaster
Or, the difference between the worst case IPCC scenario
and the best conceivable 'alternative scenario' by 2050 is only
about 1 W/m2 mean radiative energy imbalance. A radiative
forcing on that order from methane would probably make it
impossible to remain below a 'dangerous' level of 2 deg above
pre-industrial. I calculate here that it would take about 6 ppm
of methane to get 1 W/m2 over present-day. A methane
concentration of 6 ppm would be a disaster in the real world.
The methane is oxidized to CO2, another greenhouse gas that
accumulates for hundreds of thousands of years, same as fossil
fuel CO2 does. Models of chronic methane release often show that
the accumulating CO2 contributes as much to warming as does the
transient methane concentration. [...]
So, in the end, not an obvious disaster-movie plot, but a
potential positive feedback that could turn out to be the
difference between success and failure in avoiding 'dangerous'
anthropogenic climate change. That's scary enough.
In other words, if there is a Global Superstorm, it probably won't be an ocean sized hurricane that leaps
the Isthmus of Panama and reduces Florida to a limerock reef in a
matter of hours!
But then, there IS the problem of the flash frozen mammoths and
other creatures that died at the end of Pleistocene Epoch.
One of the major facts that paleontologists and geologists and
archaeologists have had to face is the stupendous number of frozen
carcasses in Canada and Alaska in the western areas, and in Northern
Russian and Siberia in the eastern areas - all dated to about 12000
years ago. This suggests, of course, that something dreadful
happened on the planet, and its effect on the Northern hemisphere
was more severe than on the Southern hemisphere.
Back in the 1940s Dr. Frank C. Hibben, Prof. of Archeology at the
University of New Mexico led an expedition to Alaska to look for
human remains. He didn't find human remains; he found miles and
miles of icy muck just packed with mammoths, mastodons, and several
kinds of bison, horses, wolves, bears and lions. Just north of
Fairbanks, Alaska, the members of the expedition watched in horror
as bulldozers pushed the half-melted muck into sluice boxes for the
extraction of gold. Animal tusks and bones rolled up in front of the
blades "like shavings before a giant plane".
The carcasses were
found in all attitudes of death, most of them "pulled apart by some
unexplainable prehistoric catastrophic disturbance."1
The evident violence of the deaths of these masses of animals,
combined with the stench of rotting flesh, was almost unendurable
both in seeing it, and in considering what might have caused it. The
killing fields stretched for literally hundreds of miles in every
direction.2 There were trees and animals, layers of peat and moss,
twisted and tangled and mangled together as though some Cosmic mixmaster sucked them all in 12000 years ago, and then froze them
instantly into a solid mass.3
Just north of Siberia entire islands are formed of the bones of
Pleistocene animals swept northward from the continent into the
freezing Arctic Ocean. One estimate suggests that some ten million
animals may be buried along the rivers of northern Siberia.
Thousands upon thousands of tusks created a massive ivory trade for
the master carvers of China, all from the frozen mammoths and
mastodons of Siberia. The famous Beresovka mammoth first drew
attention to the preserving properties of being quick-frozen when
buttercups were found in its mouth.
What kind of terrible event overtook these millions of creatures in
a single day? Well, the evidence suggests an enormous tsunami raging
across the land, tumbling animals and vegetation together, to be
finally quick-frozen for the next 12000 years.
These creatures didn't die because of the "gradual onset" of an ice
We come now to the movie "The Day After Tomorrow".
The movie was
inspired by The Coming Global Superstorm, a book written by
& Whitley Strieber which is synopsized as follows:
Global warming causes large areas of
the Arctic ice shelf to break off and melt, meaning that the
Atlantic ocean is diluted by large amounts of fresh water. This
then disrupts the Gulf Stream causing an unnatural cooling of
the northern hemisphere. This then triggers a series of
anomalies, eventually leading up to a massive "global superstorm"
system consisting of three gigantic hurricane-like superstorms,
which result in an ice age for the northern hemisphere within
One hurricane is over Canada, one over Scotland, and a
third over Siberia. The movie follows Jack, a paleoclimatologist
for NOAA; his son Sam, a high school student; and his wife Lucy,
The film portrays the "eye" of the superstorms as having such a
low pressure that extremely cold air (-150°F or -101°C) from the
troposphere is sucked downward, instantly freezing to death all
who are caught in the eye. A woman in NOAA argues that the
freezing air would warm up and rise, such as in regular storms,
but Jack simply states that the air is dropping too fast. The
storm is headed to New York, where Sam is trapped, and which
Jack is trying to reach in the hostile frozen environment with
Arctic gear and his survival skills.
Throughout the movie, a subplot involves the refusal of the Vice
President of the United States to accept the threat of global
cooling - despite increasingly extreme weather conditions
occurring throughout the world - insisting that measures to
prevent it will do too much damage to the economy.
Shortly before and during the release of the movie, members of
environmental groups and former Vice President Al Gore
distributed pamphlets to movie-goers describing what they
believe to be the possible effects of global warming, which
generally did not agree with the film; some believe Gore looked
too much into the film as what he may have thought to have been
"a scientifically accurate movie".
During the season when the
film was in theaters, much criticism arose towards politicians
concerning the Kyoto Protocol and climate change, and in the end
the movie created quite the political stir.
It follows the science
that seems to be based on valid observations and theories. And it
does provide an explanation for how wooly mammoths could be flash
frozen in mid-meal.
A screen capture from
the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"
cyclonic storms preceding the sudden onset of an ice age.
Finally, let's have a look at some
remarks the C's made about Weird Weather and Global Superstorms:
4 July 1998
Q: (A) I am trying to write down some things about a cosmology,
and I have some questions mainly about the coming events. First
there was the story of the sun's companion brown star which is
apparently approaching the solar system, and I would like to
know, if possible, details of its orbit; that is, how far it is,
what is its speed, and when it will be first seen. Can we know
it? Orbit: how close will it come?
A: Flat eliptical.
Q: (A) But how close will it come?
A: Distance depends upon other factors, such as intersecting
orbit of locator of witness.
Q: (L) What is the closest it could come to earth...
(L) Yes, but which part of the solar system? We have
nine planets... which one?
(A) I understand that this brown star
will enter the Oort cloud...
(L) I think they said it just
brushes against it and the gravity disturbs it...
A: Passes through Oort cloud on orbital journey. Already has
done this on its way "in."
Q: (A) You mean it has already entered the Oort cloud?
A: Has passed through.
Q: (A) So, it will not approach...
A: Oort cloud is located on outer perimeter orbital plane at
distance of approximately averaged distance of 510,000,000,000
Q: (L) Well, 510 billion miles gives us some time!
(A) Yes, but
what I want to know... this Oort cloud is around the solar
system, so this brown star, once it has passed through...
must already be in the solar system?
(A) No, it could have
passed through and may not come closer. Is it coming closer or
not? Is it coming closer all the time?
A: Solar system, in concert with "mother star," is revolving
around companion star, a "brown" star.
Q: (A) So, that means that the mass of the companion star is
Q: (A) Less?
A: They are moving in tandem with one another along a flat,
eliptical orbital plane. Outer reaches of solar system are
breached by passage of brown companion, thus explaining
anomalies recently discovered regarding outer planets and their
Q: (A) But I understand that the distance that the distance
between the sun and this brown star is changing with time.
Eliptical orbit means there is perihelion and aphelion. I want
to know what will be, or what was, or what is the closest
distance between this brown star and the sun? What is
perihelion? Can we know this, even approximately. Is it about
one light year, or less or more?
A: Less, much less. Distance of closest passage roughly
corresponds to the distance of the orbit of Pluto from Sun.
Q: (A) Okay. Now, this closest pass, is this something that is
going to happen?
Q: (A) And it is going to happen within the next 6 to 18 years?
A: 0 to 14.
Q: (A) Okay, that's it. I have some idea about this. Now, I
understand that, either by chance or by accident, two things are
going to happen at essentially the same time. That is the
passing of this brown star, and this comet cluster. These are
two different things?
A: Yes. Different, but related.
Q: (L) Is there a comet cluster that was knocked into some kind
of orbit of its own, that continues to orbit...
Q: (L) And in addition to that comet cluster, there are also
additional comets that are going to get whacked into the solar
system by the passing of this brown star?
Q: (A) I understand that the main disaster is going to come from
this comet cluster...
A: Disasters involve cycles in the human experiential cycle
which corresponds to the passage of comet cluster.
Q: (A) I understand that this comet cluster is cyclic and comes
every 3600 years. I want to know something about the shape of
this comet cluster. I can hardly imagine...
A: Shape is variable. Effect depends on closeness of passage.
Q: (L) So, it could be spread out...
(A) We were asking at some
point where it will be coming from. The answer was that we were
supposed to look at a spirograph.
Q: (A) Now, spirograph suggests that these comets will not come
from one direction, but from many directions at once. Is this
A: Very good!!!
Q: (A) Okay, they will come from many directions...
A: But, initial visibility presents as single, solid body.
Q: (A) Do we know what is the distance to this body at present?
A: Suggest you keep your eyes open!
Q: (A) I am keeping my eyes open.
A: Did you catch the significance of the answer regarding time
table of cluster and brown star? Human cycle mirrors cycle of
catastrophe. Earth benefits in form of periodic cleansing. Time
to start paying attention to the signs. They are escalating.
They can even be "felt" by you and others, if you pay attention.
Q: (L) We have certainly been paying attention to the signs!
A: How so?
Q: (L) Well, the weather is completely bizarre. The fires, the
Q: (L) I notice that the tides are awfully high all the time
with no ostensible explanation...
A: And low, too.
Q: (L) Yes. I have noticed that particularly.
(F) I have too.
Not too long ago I noticed that the tides were so incredibly low
for this time of year.
And also the signs in people - these kids killing their parents,
all these people going berserk - you know...
Q: (L) What do you mean spike?
A: On a graph...
Q: (L) Just spikes, not the biggie...
A: Spikes are big.
Q: (L) Well, from what you are saying about this - I mean how
are we supposed to do all these things you say we are supposed
to do? I mean, we won't have time!
A: Who says?
Q: (L) That is kind of what it is sounding like. Unless our
lives and experiences escalate in concert with all these other
(A) I have a last question which I have prepared. So,
we have these two physical disasters or events, the coming brown
star and the comet cluster, but we have been told that this time
it is going to be different because this time it is accompanied
by a plane convergence.
A: Yes. Magnetic field alteration.
Q: (A) This plane convergence, or this magnetic field
alteration, it's supposed to be related to realms crossing or
passing. A realm border.
A: Realm. What is root of "realm?"
Q: (L) Reality.
A: Yes. How does the magnetic field "plug in?" We want to stay
on this general subject matter through this session, for your
Q: (L) Okay, in terms of these signs, these things going on on
the planet, these fires and so forth - you never said anything
about all these fires in Florida. You said Arizona was going to
burn, but you never said Florida was going to burn...
A: We did not say it would not.
Q: (L) I know. But, it is really oppressive. I have read a
couple of signs in the last day or so that we are going to have
a change in the weather, a break, is my little method of
A: Reverse extreme?!?
Q: (L) Oh! Floods again! Well, I guess floods are better than
fires... but, maybe not!
A: Italy and Greece are burning too.
Q: (L) Yes, we noticed that in the paper today. Is there a
relationship between Italy and Greece and where we are on the
planet? Some kind of psychic link?
A: Just same current malady.
Q: (L) Okay, back to the comet cluster and realm border...
A: Not yet.
Q: (L) Well, which direction should we take right now?
A: Step by step.
Q: (L) Okay, you just said we are going to have a reversal in
our weather. Are there any other conditions that we should be
aware of at the present time?
A: Point is to watch, look, listen.
Q: (L) When we are watching, looking and listening, is there
some particular thing we are supposed to be watching for that is
to give us a clue about something?
Q: (L) Is there something we are supposed to do at some point
when we perceive a particular clue or event at some point?
A: What would you suggest?
Q: (L) I don't know that I would suggest anything except to keep
a low profile and keep on working until we figure out the
answer. It is like a race against time. We have to figure out
the answer because, obviously, you are not going to tell us...
A: No. No race needed.
Q: (L) Well, I sometimes feel completely inadequate for all of
A: Stop thinking 3rd density!
Q: (L) Well, I don't want to just live in LaLa land and say, 'oh
yes, I'm watching. I see the signs! I'm looking! I'm listening!
And then count them off on my fingers and say: but I'm not going
think about it because that's 3rd density!' See what I am saying
A: No, because you are still thinking 3rd density. Better to
have a "front row seat," and enjoy!
Q: (L) But I feel like I am not supposed to be enjoying myself
so much! I feel guilty!
A: Why not?
Q: (L) Well! I'm supposed to be DOING something!
A: You are.
Q: (A) When you watch, look and listen, you are getting some
signals, and these signals cause a certain pattern of thinking
which were not yet able to emerge, but now, after you receive
certain signals, you start to think in a different way. So, you
cannot now think in a different way, but when you learn this and
this has happened, then you start to think in a different
pattern. So, you cannot now do things, but you always have to be
ready to change your thinking at any moment when you understand
more, when you see more, when you notice more, when you put
things together which are not yet together. Then, there may be a
big change of perspective, a total change. And this we have to
keep our minds and thinking patterns open and ready to change,
and work and put the puzzle and mosaic together. And, this is
all that counts. It is this work that we are now doing that
counts, not some future big thing: oh! Now we go on a ship! No,
it is only doing our best, and what is it? Our best? It will
change. I believe so. That is the idea. So, everything depends
A: Yes. You see, my dear, you cannot anticipate that which is
Q: (L) Well, swell. Okay, you want to stay on this subject, so
let us move another step.
A: We are glad you noticed this birth of the spike.
Q: (L) Is that a clue? Is this one of those obscure remarks?
Yes, I noticed, the kids killing their parents, all the shooting
going on, the weather... is this connected in some way to some
A: 27 days of record heat out of 30, oh my oh my! Suggest you
awaken your internet pals, as they are too busy chasing
"goblins" to notice.
Q: (L) So, I should have something to say about this?
A: In Florida now, where to next? How about a shattering
subduction quake in Pacific Northwest of U.S.? We estimate 10.4
on the Richter scale. We have warned of Ranier. Imagine a 150
meter high tsunami in Puget Sound...
Q: (L) Does this subduction quake have anything to do with that
UFO that buried itself in the Pacific?
A: All are interconnected.
Q: (L) The information I got on that was that it was about 600
mile north and east of Hawaii. A couple of submersibles were
sent down and disappeared or were destroyed or didn't come
back... it is supposedly giving off a lot of energy. Any
Q: (L) Should I follow that direction?
A: All directions lead to lessons.
Q: (L) Now, you have mentioned this earthquake. I know that you
don't usually give predictions, why have you done so now?
A: We do not give time tables.
Q: (L) Anything else other than a tsunami in Puget Sound and a
big subduction quake... 10.4 on the Richter scale is almost
A: Ranier... caldera.
Q: (L) What about the caldera?
A: Expect one.
Q: (L) Other than floods, anything else for Florida upcoming?
A: All areas experience accelerating "freak weather patterns."
Q: (L) Okay, all of these freaky weather patterns and bizarre
things going on on the planet, how does it relate to the comet
cluster and the brown star? Is it related?
A: Human experiential cycle intersects.
Q: (L) Any specific physical manifestation of either this brown
star or this comet cluster or this realm border, that is related
to these events on the planet?
A: Approach of wave stimulates precursor activity which in turn
causes effects which in turn stimulates further "heating up" of
Q: (L) I thought it was curious that you used the term 'birth of
the spike.' Is there something or someone that was born at that
A: No. Spike is as on a graph...
Q: (L) Okay, is there anyway we could graph this ourselves, and
if so, what types of events would we include to create the
A: "El Niño, La Niña," etc...
Q: (L) Is this El Niño thing connected to sunspot cycles?
Q: (L) It has its own cycle. I don't think it has been tracked
for long enough to get...
A: Global warming, a part of the human experiential cycle.
Q: (L) I read where
Edgar Cayce said that a slight increase in
global temperature would make hurricanes something like 5 times
stronger... given a baseline temperature. Does this mean we are
going to have stronger and more frequent hurricanes?
Q: (L) Will they hit land more frequently, or just spin out in
A: Either, or.
18 March 2000
Q: You made a remark once that ice ages occur much, much faster
than people ever thought...
Q: Do we need to invest in some mukluks and snowshoes?
Q: Well, what I am trying to get at is: should we start
Q: So, it could be that fast?
A: Oh yes, and faster when in response to global "warming."
Q: When you put "warming" in quotes, you obviously mean warming
in more than just an ordinary sense? Is that correct?
A: And/or not really "warm."
Q: Whitley Strieber and Art Bell have published a book about a
"global superstorm." Is any of the information they have given
in this book fairly accurate?
A: Derived from non-human sources known for stark accuracy, when
Q: What makes it convenient at the present time for them to be
A: Fits into plans.
Q: Plans for what?
A: Do we not know already?
Q: In other words: world conquest and the takeover of humanity?
A: Not as simple.
Q: What would make my statement more accurate?
A: Call it amalgamation.
Remember what Bill Gray said in the
article from June, 2006, quoted near the beginning?
"In just three, five, maybe eight
years, he says, the world will begin to cool again."
I hope everyone has a pair of mukluks
for the Day After Tomorrow...
Mukluks and Snowshoes
required Day After Tomorrow.
Hibben, Frank, The Lost
Americans (New York: Thomas & Crowell Co. 1946).
Sanderson, Ivan T., "Riddle of
the Frozen Giants", Saturday Evening Post, No. 39, January
Simpson, George G., Horses, New
York: Oxford University Press) 1961.