US Urges World's Scientists to Block Out Sun
- Thread starter magj-kat
- Start date
2rainbows
Well-known member
I came across an absolutely terrific response/answer to the warming hype, and really any hype that is meant to wrongly direct our attention/energy a certain way. the response to reply is Global Balance, along with an understanding that Global balance is exactly every single person's birth right. if there were a well, world wide coordinated effort to direct everyone's attention/energy on Global Balance, it can be achieved in the blink of an eye.
Global Balance,
2rainbows
Global Balance,
2rainbows
AquarianEssence
Well-known member
I'm still trying to figure out how the urgent warning (probably coming from the same scientists) switched from danger of another ice age in the 70's to global warming in the 21st Century. Although I completely agree with being good stewards of the earth's resources, all the way around, this kind of contradiction keeps me from trusting the "experts" completely. Often fear is used to protect ones chosen profession perhaps.
2rainbows
Well-known member
I believe with Global Balance, the majority of professions will be in danger, so the only way elite fight this is to lie and draw attention to things. the opposite of a world wide appeal for global balance is a world wide appeal to gw and just like global balance can be achieved, gw can also just as quickly happen. almost all news is used only to move our attention/energy away from where it should be. we are all better off not listening to mainstream news. any news segments which leave you scratching your head are almost certainly completely manipulated events and will take years to find out the truth of them if ever.
2rainbows
2rainbows
AquarianEssence
Well-known member
As Neptune's mutual reception with Uranus matures, we may be in for some pleasant surprises. I think there are enough that want global balance, that it will happen. Uranus will only take away what we really don't need and Neptune will reveal the truth. And you know what they say, faith even the size of a mustard seed can move mountains.
wintersprite1
Premium Member
The Ice Age of the 70's is still a product of Global Warming. The same scientists are still saying the same thing... Global Warming can trigger an Ice Age.
This idea (shielding the Sun) may not be too far fetched, the US will need a good PR person if I understand what they are trying to convey.
The Ozone Layer is dissolving. Currently the pollutants that we have in the air is acting like a shield from the Sun while further destroying the Ozone. If all the pollutants were cleaned up immediately, the Sun would actually warm the planet quicker.
We really messed stuff up
TK
This idea (shielding the Sun) may not be too far fetched, the US will need a good PR person if I understand what they are trying to convey.
The Ozone Layer is dissolving. Currently the pollutants that we have in the air is acting like a shield from the Sun while further destroying the Ozone. If all the pollutants were cleaned up immediately, the Sun would actually warm the planet quicker.
We really messed stuff up
TK
Whoa, that's stupid, yet so plausible and common in nowadays' science! Instead of fighting the cause, that is the wrong way industry is heading, they're just trying to block just an element of the global warming process. This is perfectly analogous with the situation in medicine when they mostly treat diseases' pathogenesis instead of their causes, that is they block intermediary processes instead of the root cause.magj-kat said:
AquarianEssence
Well-known member
wintersprite1 said:The Ozone Layer is dissolving. Currently the pollutants that we have in the air is acting like a shield from the Sun while further destroying the Ozone. If all the pollutants were cleaned up immediately, the Sun would actually warm the planet quicker.
We really messed stuff up
TK
I've also read that the ozone has its own natural cycle of thinning and thickening so who are we to believe? I'd need to know the background and motivation of all who are giving their testimony here.
Kaiousei no Senshi
Premium Member
Global Warming can trigger an Ice Age, or at least, a somewhat localized one. When the ice caps melt so much the current of waters that lie in the Atlantic between North America and Europe will shift to the south, thus taking away the warm jet winds and what not that keep Europe so warm. When this goes, the cold temperatures that surround that part of the world won't be held back and they'll grip northern North America and Europe in an eternal wintery chill. To the South, this will effect the storm cycles, raising up larger, more powerful storms out of the sea's depths.
Edit: Correted the quote code so it actually worked. -.-'
Howl
Well-known member
Ahah, I won't be part of this ice age
although I will no doubt be subject to either (or alternating) devastating storm or drought. I believe you're right. It is thought to be connected to the vegetation cycle in the northern hemisphere. As most of the earth's mass is in the northern hemisphere, when the leaves fall and decompose, there is a slight increase in ozone. When they sprout and use C02, it thins again, slightly. There is less vegetation (and land mass) in the southern hemisphere (and I don't think there is any native deciduous vegetation?) so there is a cyclical pattern according to global seasonal change. The problem is that we're adding to the baseline thickness of gasses in the atmosphere, so this cycle still operates but the gass layer is actually thicker at all times than it ever has been.
Strange, we seem to have reached "tipping point" consciousness of global warming in Australia, so much so that climate change is billed as a major election issue for the next federal election. BOTH major parties actually now have something to say about it. Of course there is still disagreement about the severity of the problem, and even more so about "solutions" (nuclear power....agh!) but the consensus appears to be that significant, and threatening, human made climate change exists, and that we need to act. (Please note however that Australia failed to sign the Kyoto protocal, or to propose anything better, to date. Sigh).
Last edited:
lilllybelle
Well-known member
I've been reading this book about Tom McCall, the previous governor of Oregon, called "Fire at Eden's Gate." Apperently environmental issues were a huge concern for people on the west coast of America around 1970. Then the concern for the environment fizzled out, and now the concern has resurfaced. I never knew that people cared about the environment back then. I wonder why environmental concerns seemed to vanish for the next twenty years or so after the 1970's. Things are getting better though. President Bush recently proposed 1.2 billion $ for the research of hydrogen powered cars. I don't know where the money will come from though.
The US is not urging world's scientists to block out the sun. The majority of the scientist in this country, and in the world, are a little too intelligent to support a hypothesis or idea of this nature. L.
The US is not urging world's scientists to block out the sun. The majority of the scientist in this country, and in the world, are a little too intelligent to support a hypothesis or idea of this nature. L.
AquarianEssence
Well-known member
Perhaps we should consult with the big guys.
The best article I found on the cycles and studies of the ozone is here: http://www.usyd.edu.au/envsci/students/notes/air/notes7-1_06.pdf
In it they point out the natural thin spot over Antartica from Sept-Nov. each year, spring time there. They also point out the changes from the 11 year Sun spot cycle, 4-7 yr El Nino cycle and the 2 yr stratosphere wind change cycle, reversing east to west and back again. But what I found most interesting is this:
"...For instance, mean October ozone at Halley Bay on the Antarctic coast was 117 DU in 1993, down from 321 DU in 1956. (Notice in the chart below, the declination of Uranus and Pluto are just completing a parallel in 1956. Also notice that Uranus and Neptune are parallel in 1993. None were out of bounds during 1956-1993)
History of Discovery
Ground-based measurements of ozone were first started in 1956, at Halley Bay, Antarctica. Satellite measurements of ozone started in the early 70's, but the first comprehensive worldwide measurements started in 1978...
In 1974, M.J. Molina and F.S... Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC's to catalytically breakdown ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light... Further studies estimated that the ozone layer would be depleted by CFC's by about 7% within 60 years and based on such studies the US banned CFC's in aerosol sprays in 1978. Slowly, various nations agreed to ban CFC's in aerosols but industry fought the banning of valuable CFC's in other applications. A large shock was needed to motivate the world to get serious about phasing out CFC's and that shock came in 1985. Published in Nature, May 1985, a field study by Farman, Gardinar and Shanklin summarized data that had been collected by the British Antarctic Survey showing that ozone levels had dropped to 10% below normal January levels for Antarctica. ...In fact, however, NASA had observed such drops throughout the previous decade... But in 1984, at the same time as the British survey, NASA noticed a sudden increase in flagged ozone values from October 1983 onwards and decided that the values must be real and not errors. ...ozone depletion over the
Antarctic leading to the formation of a “hole” was seen as far back as 1976. (Uranus and Neptune are again parallel in 1975)
Progression
The Ozone Hole and ozone depletion progressively
got worse until the mid 1990s. Since then, some
aspects have improved while others have levelled off.
For example, the absolute ozone level minima
measured at the South Pole have been increasing
since the mid 1990s, but the overall size of the Hole
has not decreased, although it seems to have
stabilised. Once again in 1995 Uranus and Neptune, then in 2002 Uranus and Pluto were parallel, corresponding perhaps to the improvement.
Ozone Depletion
Ozone depletion is not just a problem particular to the South Pole. Since 1984, numerous studies have confirmed both the existence of the Antarctic hole, as well as an overall
global decrease in ozone. One major study calculates that the global ozone
has decreased 2.5% from 1969 to 1986 (Uranus-Pluto contraparallel midway through this period) and another 3% drop from 1986 to 1993, (Uranus comes within orb of being parallel Neptune) above and beyond what natural factors could account for. The springtime loss of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica is the largest depletion. Currently, in non-polar regions, the ozone layer has been depleted up to several percent compared with that of two decades ago.
...the magnitude of ozone depletion varies between the regions of the Earth. For example, there has been little or no ozone depletion in the tropics (about 20 degrees north and south of the equator). The magnitude of the depletion also depends on the season. From 1979 to 1997, the observed losses in the amount of ozone overhead have totalled about 5-6% for northern mid-latitudes in Winter and Spring, about 3% for northern mid-latitudes in Summer and Autumn, and about 5% year round for southern mid-latitudes. Since the early 1980s, the ozone hole has formed over Antarctica during every Southern Hemisphere Spring (September to November), in which up to 60% of the total ozone is depleted. Since the early 1990s, ozone depletion has also been observed over the Arctic, with the ozone loss from January through late March typically being 20-25% in most of the recent years. All of these decreases are larger than known long-term natural variations." (Beginning in the early 80s Uranus and Pluto were within a couple degrees applying and then separating parallel, then as they moved out of orb, Pluto moved into to orb of being parallel Uranus. This leads me to widen the orb for parallel a bit.
(Bold italic print is my 2/to/too sense/cents/sents :9:
Date | Uranus | Neptune | Pluto |
| | | |
| DECL | DECL | DECL |
--------------------------------------------
01 Jan 1950 | 23°41 | - 5°18 | 23°17 |
01 Jan 1951 | 23°34 | - 6°06 | 23°09 |
01 Jan 1952 | 23°16 | - 6°53 | 23°00 |
01 Jan 1953 | 22°49 | - 7°39 | 22°50 |
01 Jan 1954 | 22°12 | - 8°25 | 22°38 |
01 Jan 1955 | 21°25 | - 9°10 | 22°24 |
01 Jan 1956 | 20°28 | - 9°55 | 22°08 |
01 Jan 1957 | 19°23 | -10°39 | 21°52 |
01 Jan 1958 | 18°09 | -11°22 | 21°33 |
01 Jan 1959 | 16°48 | -12°04 | 21°13 |
01 Jan 1960 | 15°20 | -12°44 | 20°50 |
01 Jan 1961 | 13°46 | -13°25 | 20°27 |
01 Jan 1962 | 12°06 | -14°04 | 20°01 |
01 Jan 1963 | 10°22 | -14°41 | 19°34 |
01 Jan 1964 | 8°34 | -15°18 | 19°05 |
01 Jan 1965 | 6°43 | -15°53 | 18°34 |
01 Jan 1966 | 4°50 | -16°27 | 18°01 |
01 Jan 1967 | 2°55 | -17°00 | 17°26 |
01 Jan 1968 | 1°00 | -17°32 | 16°49 |
01 Jan 1969 | - 0°54 | -18°02 | 16°10 |
01 Jan 1970 | - 2°47 | -18°30 | 15°30 |
01 Jan 1971 | - 4°39 | -18°58 | 14°48 |
01 Jan 1972 | - 6°29 | -19°23 | 14°04 |
01 Jan 1973 | - 8°16 | -19°47 | 13°19 |
01 Jan 1974 | - 9°59 | -20°09 | 12°33 |
01 Jan 1975 | -11°37 | -20°30 | 11°44 |
01 Jan 1976 | -13°11 | -20°49 | 10°55 |
01 Jan 1977 | -14°40 | -21°06 | 10°04 |
01 Jan 1978 | -16°03 | -21°22 | 9°11 |
01 Jan 1979 | -17°20 | -21°35 | 8°18 |
01 Jan 1980 | -18°30 | -21°47 | 7°23 |
01 Jan 1981 | -19°35 | -21°57 | 6°28 |
01 Jan 1982 | -20°32 | -22°05 | 5°31 |
01 Jan 1983 | -21°21 | -22°12 | 4°34 |
01 Jan 1984 | -22°03 | -22°16 | 3°36 |
01 Jan 1985 | -22°38 | -22°19 | 2°38 |
01 Jan 1986 | -23°05 | -22°19 | 1°39 |
01 Jan 1987 | -23°24 | -22°18 | 0°41 |
01 Jan 1988 | -23°35 | -22°15 | - 0°17 |
01 Jan 1989 | -23°39 | -22°10 | - 1°16 |
01 Jan 1990 | -23°35 | -22°03 | - 2°14 |
01 Jan 1991 | -23°24 | -21°54 | - 3°13 |
01 Jan 1992 | -23°06 | -21°43 | - 4°10 |
01 Jan 1993 | -22°40 | -21°30 | - 5°08 |
01 Jan 1994 | -22°09 | -21°16 | - 6°05 |
01 Jan 1995 | -21°31 | -21°00 | - 7°00 |
01 Jan 1996 | -20°48 | -20°42 | - 7°55 |
01 Jan 1997 | -19°58 | -20°22 | - 8°49 |
01 Jan 1998 | -19°04 | -20°00 | - 9°42 |
01 Jan 1999 | -18°05 | -19°37 | -10°33 |
01 Jan 2000 | -17°01 | -19°13 | -11°23 | I don't think the connection between the changes in and cycles of the ozone and the dance between the outer trio can be other than important in understanding our living, breathing gaeia.
Hi Themis. This got me to wondering what the astrological connection between the planets and the ozone it. I naturally assume Neptune's importance because he creates fog and dissolves. Ruling the oceans helps, also since the water mass and weather cycles are part of the ozone cycles. I looked to Uranus for any breakdown, natural or otherwise and to Pluto for destruction and recycling. I first wondered about OOB cycles because this is when they operate above and beyone normal. I looked at the last 100 years. Pluto has been a good boy and even with his oddball orbit, he's remained in bounds. Interesting? During the last century Uranus has only been out of bounds twice. Each period was in and out of bounds for about 4 years, 1903-1907 and 1947-1952. Neptune, the great dissolver has only been out of bounds off and on during a 16 year period from 1937-1953. Notice that it is after the out of bounds periods for the century that the attention to and study of the ozone layer begins.Themis said:
The best article I found on the cycles and studies of the ozone is here: http://www.usyd.edu.au/envsci/students/notes/air/notes7-1_06.pdf
In it they point out the natural thin spot over Antartica from Sept-Nov. each year, spring time there. They also point out the changes from the 11 year Sun spot cycle, 4-7 yr El Nino cycle and the 2 yr stratosphere wind change cycle, reversing east to west and back again. But what I found most interesting is this:
"...For instance, mean October ozone at Halley Bay on the Antarctic coast was 117 DU in 1993, down from 321 DU in 1956. (Notice in the chart below, the declination of Uranus and Pluto are just completing a parallel in 1956. Also notice that Uranus and Neptune are parallel in 1993. None were out of bounds during 1956-1993)
History of Discovery
Ground-based measurements of ozone were first started in 1956, at Halley Bay, Antarctica. Satellite measurements of ozone started in the early 70's, but the first comprehensive worldwide measurements started in 1978...
In 1974, M.J. Molina and F.S... Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC's to catalytically breakdown ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light... Further studies estimated that the ozone layer would be depleted by CFC's by about 7% within 60 years and based on such studies the US banned CFC's in aerosol sprays in 1978. Slowly, various nations agreed to ban CFC's in aerosols but industry fought the banning of valuable CFC's in other applications. A large shock was needed to motivate the world to get serious about phasing out CFC's and that shock came in 1985. Published in Nature, May 1985, a field study by Farman, Gardinar and Shanklin summarized data that had been collected by the British Antarctic Survey showing that ozone levels had dropped to 10% below normal January levels for Antarctica. ...In fact, however, NASA had observed such drops throughout the previous decade... But in 1984, at the same time as the British survey, NASA noticed a sudden increase in flagged ozone values from October 1983 onwards and decided that the values must be real and not errors. ...ozone depletion over the
Antarctic leading to the formation of a “hole” was seen as far back as 1976. (Uranus and Neptune are again parallel in 1975)
Progression
The Ozone Hole and ozone depletion progressively
got worse until the mid 1990s. Since then, some
aspects have improved while others have levelled off.
For example, the absolute ozone level minima
measured at the South Pole have been increasing
since the mid 1990s, but the overall size of the Hole
has not decreased, although it seems to have
stabilised. Once again in 1995 Uranus and Neptune, then in 2002 Uranus and Pluto were parallel, corresponding perhaps to the improvement.
Ozone Depletion
Ozone depletion is not just a problem particular to the South Pole. Since 1984, numerous studies have confirmed both the existence of the Antarctic hole, as well as an overall
global decrease in ozone. One major study calculates that the global ozone
has decreased 2.5% from 1969 to 1986 (Uranus-Pluto contraparallel midway through this period) and another 3% drop from 1986 to 1993, (Uranus comes within orb of being parallel Neptune) above and beyond what natural factors could account for. The springtime loss of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica is the largest depletion. Currently, in non-polar regions, the ozone layer has been depleted up to several percent compared with that of two decades ago.
...the magnitude of ozone depletion varies between the regions of the Earth. For example, there has been little or no ozone depletion in the tropics (about 20 degrees north and south of the equator). The magnitude of the depletion also depends on the season. From 1979 to 1997, the observed losses in the amount of ozone overhead have totalled about 5-6% for northern mid-latitudes in Winter and Spring, about 3% for northern mid-latitudes in Summer and Autumn, and about 5% year round for southern mid-latitudes. Since the early 1980s, the ozone hole has formed over Antarctica during every Southern Hemisphere Spring (September to November), in which up to 60% of the total ozone is depleted. Since the early 1990s, ozone depletion has also been observed over the Arctic, with the ozone loss from January through late March typically being 20-25% in most of the recent years. All of these decreases are larger than known long-term natural variations." (Beginning in the early 80s Uranus and Pluto were within a couple degrees applying and then separating parallel, then as they moved out of orb, Pluto moved into to orb of being parallel Uranus. This leads me to widen the orb for parallel a bit.
(Bold italic print is my 2/to/too sense/cents/sents :9:
Date | Uranus | Neptune | Pluto |
| | | |
| DECL | DECL | DECL |
--------------------------------------------
01 Jan 1950 | 23°41 | - 5°18 | 23°17 |
01 Jan 1951 | 23°34 | - 6°06 | 23°09 |
01 Jan 1952 | 23°16 | - 6°53 | 23°00 |
01 Jan 1953 | 22°49 | - 7°39 | 22°50 |
01 Jan 1954 | 22°12 | - 8°25 | 22°38 |
01 Jan 1955 | 21°25 | - 9°10 | 22°24 |
01 Jan 1956 | 20°28 | - 9°55 | 22°08 |
01 Jan 1957 | 19°23 | -10°39 | 21°52 |
01 Jan 1958 | 18°09 | -11°22 | 21°33 |
01 Jan 1959 | 16°48 | -12°04 | 21°13 |
01 Jan 1960 | 15°20 | -12°44 | 20°50 |
01 Jan 1961 | 13°46 | -13°25 | 20°27 |
01 Jan 1962 | 12°06 | -14°04 | 20°01 |
01 Jan 1963 | 10°22 | -14°41 | 19°34 |
01 Jan 1964 | 8°34 | -15°18 | 19°05 |
01 Jan 1965 | 6°43 | -15°53 | 18°34 |
01 Jan 1966 | 4°50 | -16°27 | 18°01 |
01 Jan 1967 | 2°55 | -17°00 | 17°26 |
01 Jan 1968 | 1°00 | -17°32 | 16°49 |
01 Jan 1969 | - 0°54 | -18°02 | 16°10 |
01 Jan 1970 | - 2°47 | -18°30 | 15°30 |
01 Jan 1971 | - 4°39 | -18°58 | 14°48 |
01 Jan 1972 | - 6°29 | -19°23 | 14°04 |
01 Jan 1973 | - 8°16 | -19°47 | 13°19 |
01 Jan 1974 | - 9°59 | -20°09 | 12°33 |
01 Jan 1975 | -11°37 | -20°30 | 11°44 |
01 Jan 1976 | -13°11 | -20°49 | 10°55 |
01 Jan 1977 | -14°40 | -21°06 | 10°04 |
01 Jan 1978 | -16°03 | -21°22 | 9°11 |
01 Jan 1979 | -17°20 | -21°35 | 8°18 |
01 Jan 1980 | -18°30 | -21°47 | 7°23 |
01 Jan 1981 | -19°35 | -21°57 | 6°28 |
01 Jan 1982 | -20°32 | -22°05 | 5°31 |
01 Jan 1983 | -21°21 | -22°12 | 4°34 |
01 Jan 1984 | -22°03 | -22°16 | 3°36 |
01 Jan 1985 | -22°38 | -22°19 | 2°38 |
01 Jan 1986 | -23°05 | -22°19 | 1°39 |
01 Jan 1987 | -23°24 | -22°18 | 0°41 |
01 Jan 1988 | -23°35 | -22°15 | - 0°17 |
01 Jan 1989 | -23°39 | -22°10 | - 1°16 |
01 Jan 1990 | -23°35 | -22°03 | - 2°14 |
01 Jan 1991 | -23°24 | -21°54 | - 3°13 |
01 Jan 1992 | -23°06 | -21°43 | - 4°10 |
01 Jan 1993 | -22°40 | -21°30 | - 5°08 |
01 Jan 1994 | -22°09 | -21°16 | - 6°05 |
01 Jan 1995 | -21°31 | -21°00 | - 7°00 |
01 Jan 1996 | -20°48 | -20°42 | - 7°55 |
01 Jan 1997 | -19°58 | -20°22 | - 8°49 |
01 Jan 1998 | -19°04 | -20°00 | - 9°42 |
01 Jan 1999 | -18°05 | -19°37 | -10°33 |
01 Jan 2000 | -17°01 | -19°13 | -11°23 | I don't think the connection between the changes in and cycles of the ozone and the dance between the outer trio can be other than important in understanding our living, breathing gaeia.
Last edited:
BlackMoonLilith
Member
Is the Sun an evolutionary catalyst?
Alot of scientists now think that the entire solar system is in accelerated
transformation, perhaps due (partly) to the Sun, and this is why they want it blocked.
I've never believed the global warming theory.
what we dream....we become
Alot of scientists now think that the entire solar system is in accelerated
transformation, perhaps due (partly) to the Sun, and this is why they want it blocked.
I've never believed the global warming theory.
what we dream....we become
Last edited:
Light
Well-known member
Hi
I just about remember the environmental stories in the 70's - the cars with the big bags of hydrogen on the top (who ever thought of that one obviously didn't have his safety concious moon very well placed!). The power shortages, the oil crisis - only going to school 3 days a week!! But that was all for various reasons and not necessarily environmental. Still.
But, what about the theory that we are entering the photon band, 2012 and all that? www.2012.com.au/Photon_belt.html. Whilst the theory may be a bit off/strange/whatever the physics of it could makes sense in terms of global warming. Cut out all the wuwu stuff and the logic is sound . Ok fairly sound. - it appeals to my aqu merc, anyway. As logical as us knowing how the Earth was all those years ago. We can't say for definite - who was there then??? We can only surmise based on theories attached to physical evidence. A bit like who first called a table a table, and known as one ever since?
Wasn't there a film where they tried to block the sun with mirrors? Can anyone remember it, or is that another of my vague imaginingings? If there was, is it a case of Life imitating art?
hope this makes sense
light
I just about remember the environmental stories in the 70's - the cars with the big bags of hydrogen on the top (who ever thought of that one obviously didn't have his safety concious moon very well placed!). The power shortages, the oil crisis - only going to school 3 days a week!!
But that was all for various reasons and not necessarily environmental. Still.But, what about the theory that we are entering the photon band, 2012 and all that? www.2012.com.au/Photon_belt.html. Whilst the theory may be a bit off/strange/whatever the physics of it could makes sense in terms of global warming. Cut out all the wuwu stuff and the logic is sound
. Ok fairly sound. - it appeals to my aqu merc, anyway. As logical as us knowing how the Earth was all those years ago. We can't say for definite - who was there then??? We can only surmise based on theories attached to physical evidence. A bit like who first called a table a table, and known as one ever since?Wasn't there a film where they tried to block the sun with mirrors? Can anyone remember it, or is that another of my vague imaginingings? If there was, is it a case of Life imitating art?
hope this makes sense
light
AquarianEssence
Well-known member
It's so interesting how the planets talk. Block the Sun...Saturn in Leo Send the reflection back..opposite Sun in Aquarius. Problem is he'll just shine all the brighter when he sees the beautiful reflection in the mirror. Mirror, Mirror on the wall, whos the fairest of them all? Time for Eris to enter center stage.
Send the reflection back..opposite Sun in Aquarius. Problem is he'll just shine all the brighter when he sees the beautiful reflection in the mirror. Mirror, Mirror on the wall, whos the fairest of them all? Time for Eris to enter center stage.I think global warming is real but blocking out he sun wont change anything. Many respected scientists say that global warming is not caused by the sun because the tempertures are beginning to get warmer at night when the earth is turned away from the sun. Therefore something on our planet must be the causing the increase in tempertures.
unukalhai
Well-known member
AquarianEssence said:It's so interesting how the planets talk. Block the Sun...Saturn in Leo
That's a great observation! I didn't even consider that!
... There are so many concepts on global warming, sad fact is none of us really know what the heck is going on... However, the glacial changes and other earth changes certainly are compelling, regardless of the cause.
But even when I was a little kid, I wondered how it was possible for our fairly compact planet to absorb all the heat of millions of cars, jet planes, power plants, gigawatts of energy abuse, detonation of numerous nuclear devices inside our biosphere, and countless other heat sources which have never existed before the industrial era. I doubt Gaia has seen the amount of energy release in the past 100 years throughout the entire preceding time in the age of Pisces! Sure, there have been massive forrest fires and volcanos, but you can bet those haven't slowed down either.
My biggest concern is that once the oceans warm up enough, and enough ice melts, greatly reducing the amount of absorbed heat, that our biosphere will engage in a runaway warming period. Unfortunately, with billions of people content with burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, there's no end in sight to the practice. To change in any significant quantity would mean a complete makeover of our infrastructure, routines, and way of life. But then again, Pluto IS going into Capricorn quite soon
On the positive side, it is entirely possible the Sun is just hotter, as the (likely paid off) "scientists" say, and that's all we're up against... However, I just don't see how all the radiated energy of the industrial era would just disappear and not have any effect on our climate. Could that much of it just radiate out into space?!
IMHO, we're pretty gullible to think we can get away with the current level of earth abuse being committed in the name of greed... But maybe that's just my Aquarian Moon talking!
AquarianEssence
Well-known member
So what is the answer? Clearly it would be a good idea to find alternatives to oil since that renews so slowly and seems to pollute more. But did we consume less energy the old way of heating our living space, with an open fire out doors or in a tent and other flimsy homes? Did horses consume less energy that our tractors and cars? Did the old ways of making metal and tools use less energy? Did any of these ways pollute less? I think wood or corn would be a less toxic form of pollution but I'm not sure it would be less. I think we're best off developing safe alternatives and utilizing that energy in the most conservative ways.
Look at the amount of pollution and waste just selling us milk, pop and juice in plastic is causing. Whole landfills are needed just for that. Or, they may remelt it, re pollute, and make it into something else. But in the days of glass they got many, many uses out of each container. And everything tasted better. I couldn't use plastic for my essential oils even if I wanted to. They dissolve the inferior material and allow oxygen to pass in and out, destroying their volatile essence. I do put lotion and massage oils in plastic, but only because people want the convient nature of the pour spout and ability to squeeze a little out rather than have to carefully pour. Still the life is shortened by being in plastic instead of glass.
Look at the amount of pollution and waste just selling us milk, pop and juice in plastic is causing. Whole landfills are needed just for that. Or, they may remelt it, re pollute, and make it into something else. But in the days of glass they got many, many uses out of each container. And everything tasted better. I couldn't use plastic for my essential oils even if I wanted to. They dissolve the inferior material and allow oxygen to pass in and out, destroying their volatile essence. I do put lotion and massage oils in plastic, but only because people want the convient nature of the pour spout and ability to squeeze a little out rather than have to carefully pour. Still the life is shortened by being in plastic instead of glass.