Powers That Be want natural disasters
In the forecast, more rain and snow
Rising temperatures in the world's atmosphere and oceans will lead to more intense storms as the century progresses, according to a new report from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Evaporation increases when the surface temperature of the ocean rises and warmer air can hold more moisture. When this soggier-than-normal air moves over land, it results in storms wetter and more intense than those experienced in the past.
The greatest changes will occur over land in the tropics, according to the study, which was released Thursday. Heavier rain or snow, however, will also fall in northwestern and northeastern North America, northern Europe, northern and eastern Asia, southwestern Australia, and parts of South America during the current century.
"The models show most areas around the world will experience more intense precipitation for a given storm during this century," lead author Gerald Meehl said in a statement. "Information on which areas will be most affected could help communities to better manage water resources and anticipate possible flooding."
The Mediterranean and the southwestern U.S., meanwhile, will experience a different pattern. Storms will likely become wetter, particularly in the fall and winter, but dry spells may stretch for longer in the warmer months. A picture of how this pattern might develop was seen in Europe this year: While Germany endured unprecedented floods, Spain and Portugal imposed water rationing because of a lengthy drought.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in April released a report predicting that hurricanes would become more intense over the coming century. It became an oft-cited study after Hurricane Katrina hit.
Climate change has become a hot-button issue for scientists, politicians and the general public. The scientific community now generally agrees that global warming is in fact happening, and most of the future scenarios aren't pretty.
[Remember when the idea that global warming and the idea that the planet's climate was rapidly changing were just "wild theories" that only "crazy people" talked about? Makes you wonder what else the so-called "experts" have gotten dead wrong - and why they got it dead wrong when all the available data clearly indicated that something was amiss...]
Rising sea levels could lead to more frequent flooding in Bangladesh and other low-lying nations. Food production could also be disrupted. Melting polar ice is expected by some to lead to a sea lane above Siberia in a few years.
While scientists generally agree that the world's climate is changing, there is more disagreement over how much of the change is due to human behavior. Some believe a great deal of the warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which create greenhouse gases that trap heat. Examination of data from the 20th century implicates humans, Meehl said in a phone interview.
"Probably most of the climate change in the early part of the century was caused by natural events," he said, such as a rebounding of temperatures that ordinarily occurs after volcanoes. "But the change in the latter part of he 20th century was the result of human activity."
Others disagree. Still others assert that, because the stakes are so high, debating whether or not reducing greenhouse gas emissions can help makes no sense.
[end of article]
Instead of arguing over what is causing climate change, shouldn't the alleged experts be figuring out how to prepare for the changing climatic system? Then again, failing to prepare for future global catastrophes would certainly benefit the Powers that Be, since that would mean fewer mouths to feed.
You may wish to consider the maximum sustainable population figures discussed in the Adventures Series written in the Spring of 2002 by Laura Knight-Jadczyk. In Adventures Chapter 30 she writes:
Hugh Everett's name may be familiar because of what is called The Everett-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics. A rival of the orthodox "Copenhagen" interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The Everett Wheeler theory is also known as the "many worlds" interpretation. [...]
Everett left physics after completing his Ph.D., going to work as a defense analyst at the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group, Pentagon and later became a private contractor. He was very successful, becoming a multimillionaire. In 1968 Everett worked for the Lambda Corporation, now subsidiary of General Research Corporation in McLean, Virginia. His published papers during this period cover things like optimizing resource allocation and maximizing kill rates during nuclear-weapon campaigns. [...]
I was curious about Everett's work for Lambda. A recent search of the literature turns up a paper written by Joseph George Caldwell entitled Optimal Attack and Defense for a Number of Targets in the Case of Imperfect Interceptors. [...]
Aside from the fact that we see evidence of the use of pure mathematics - Game Theory, in fact - in matters of warfare strategy, which includes source notes connecting this work to Wheeler, we find Joseph George Caldwell to be a bit interesting for other reasons. He has a website where he promotes the following idea:
"What is the sustainable human population for Earth?", I propose that a long-term sustainable number is on the order of ten million, consisting of a technologically advanced population of a single nation of about five million people concentrated in one or a few centers, and a globally distributed primitive population of about five million.
"I arrived at this size by approaching the problem from the point of view of estimating the minimum number of human beings that would have a good chance of long-term survival, instead of approaching it from the (usual) point of view of attempting to estimate the maximum number of human beings that the planet might be able to support.
"The reason why I use the approach of minimizing the human population is to keep the damaging effects of human industrial activity on the biosphere to a minimum. Because mankind's industrial activity produces so much waste that cannot be metabolized by "nature," any attempt to maximize the size of the human population risks total destruction of the biosphere (such as the "sixth extinction" now in progress).
Let's stop right here and ask the question: Who said that there was such a thing as the "Sixth Extinction," and that it was now in progress? Is this something that is generally "known" in the circles that do this kind of research? Is this WHY they are doing it? What do they know that the rest of us don't? Or better, what do they think that they aren't telling us? Caldwell writes:
The role of the technological population is "planetary management": to ensure that the size of the primitive population does not expand.
The role of the primitive population is to reduce the likelihood that a localized catastrophe might wipe out the human population altogether.
The reason for choosing the number five million for the primitive population size is that this is approximately the number (an estimated 2-20 million) that Earth supported for millions of years, i.e., it is proved to be a long-term sustainable number (in mathematical terminology, a "feasible" solution to the optimization problem).
The reason for choosing the number five million for the technological population size is that it is my opinion that that is about the minimum practical size for a technologically advanced population capable of managing a planet the size of Earth; also, it is my opinion that the "solar energy budget" of the planet can support a population of five million primitive people and five million "industrial" people indefinitely. [www.foundationwebsite.org ]
Mr. Caldwell's ideas are a techno representation of Synarchy, a clue to the REAL Stargate Conspiracy. It seems that, there is, indeed, something very mysterious going on all over the planet in terms of shaping the thinking of humanity via books, movies, and cultural themes, but at this point, we understand that most of what is promulgated is lies and disinformation. We hope to come to some idea of what the "insiders" know that they aren't telling us, and perhaps we will find some clues as we continue our investigation here.
End of excerpt