Saturday, July 2, 2011

The solution to global warming: nuclear winter

I've been thinking about the state of affairs of the planet lately, in a strictly environmental sense. You see I used to have a friend who told me that "one day soon, if we dont get our shit together, North America will be a desert" while I tacitly agreed at the time and could see the sense in this hypothesis, it is only lately that I've been asking myself; "so where's this desert at?" (we have NOT gotten our proverbial sh*t together in the decade since). See, at the time I was much m
ore involved in environmental issues, but it made
sense to me that given the rates of carbon- capturing emissions we were spewing out, it was a somewhat inevitable conclusion (the assumption, even then, being that there was some correlation between our abuse of exhaust fumes and the unbearable summer heat).

Back when I was involved more heavily in green movements it was widely speculated that within 10 or 20 years, given the exponential nature of our problems, that climate change would be obvious and apparent, even to the detriment of our species. Even Al Gores' later film on the topic seemed to lend credence to an assumption that were were at a sort of tipping point, that it would not be long until shorelines encroached on major population areas (a relic from the days of ship transport). But this has not happened, evn though great swaths of the ant arctic shelf have fallen away and the fact that there is nearly NO permanent ice left on the northern pole, we still have not seen these cataclysmic Earth ch
anges... thats not to say we wont someday, but the immanent threat seems greatly deminished if the planet has survived this first decade of the new era so relatively unscathed.

But, that is not to say that within 5 or 10 years we wouldn't be seeing the real results of
this dilemma... as far as I can tell from all my exhaustive research, there are two reasons we havn't and may not see these great earth changes come to pass. The first of which is the removing of millions of gallons o
f water from the Earths supply; let me explain.

As I have long stated there is a very strange phenomena afoot which is exclusive to our time in history, namely the bottling of water. While this might seem a simple extortionist business model, it is possible that we are also facilitating the rape and abuse of the planet by bottling water, even beyond the outrageous notion that a liter of water should cost more than a liter of gas (for a short while longer anyway). I have another friend who owns a small convenience store, and he tells me stories a
bout how, when the first salesmen came around, and offered him to start selling bottled water, he thought they were madmen... "who would pay for bottled water when there is perfectly good water available from the tap" ? Well, as we now know the tap water might not be the first choice of the thirsty consumer for any number of reasons, chemicals used to promote 'public health safety' not least among them. But irregardless he now makes a healt
hy margin off of Coke or Pepsi branded water. I have made a video about this before, but herein I shall again crunch some fast numbers.

Lets assume that the average bottle of water holds 500ml, or a half liter... in any given sto
re, between their refrigerated inventory and the stuff in the back there is probably 100L of water in bottles. Now let us assume that for every 1000 people there are say 2 such operations in existence... lets take the population of Canada at 30 Million souls, therefore.... about 6 million liters (or 1.5milli
on gallons) would be ensnared inside petrolium prisons... thats just Canada, in america we can safely assume 10x the amount for 11.5 Million gallons or about 50 million liters... if the average Olympic pool has 85,000 gallons that is equal to 135 olympic sized pools (about 6 feet deep and 30 across, as far as you can possibly see), which might not seem like a tremendous amount until we also consider the amount of pools, water taken for other beverage production, industrial uses, etc, etc.... and places like europe, china, south korea and japan, which would again increase our trapped water estimates by another 10 times in consideration of all its unnatural uses... what I am getting at here is that there
may be some correlation between the fact that shorelines have not been inundated with flood-waters from rising shorelines, and the amount of water which has been taken away from the natura
l cycles of the Earth. It is highly probably that my numbers here are far off but I would assume them to be lacking
and not gross exaggerations. I have no data available on how much water needs to be added or removed to affect shorelines, but suffice it to say that I feel if I was paid enough to make a serious study of these numbers the results would be shocking.... so that is part one of our considerations on the matter - we have taken millions of gallons of water OUT of the natural cycles and this may be part of why the Earth has not flooded certain low lying areas as yet in spite of massive glacial melting and whatnot caused by an increase in our global temperature. It should, however go without saying that if this is so, the removal of this amount of water, since
in nature it largely functions to cool our planet and absorb heat from the sun, is a cause for some concern when thinking of the possibility for global warming problems of today and into the future.

So on to part two of our considerations on global warming; OIL.

Lets just preface
this with my saying that I am a proponent of abiotic oil. perhaps I have spelled it wrong as it is underlined in red; basically I support the theory that the worlds supply of oil is virtually unlimited. For example, if you believe that oil is a bi product of dinosaurs, I will punch you in the face, well not really, but that isn't to say that you dont deserve it for thinking that there we 100,000,000,000 dinosaurs which have been converted to this biomass. Surely no one would argue that the Earth eats itself (duhh, why are ruins always buried?) but still, it is totally unrealistic to think that that many dinosaurs were consumed so quickly as to provide the massive pools of hydrocarbons that we have discovered in the mid-east or under the arctic shelf... basically, we have only dug a few miles into the earth... our outward exploration is always greated than our inward development (we have explored some hundreds - or hundreds of thousands if you buy the whole moon landing thing - miles upward) but we have yet to successfully examine even 10% of these distances inward to the Earths core. While I believe to some extent the theory of continental dr
ift, I also propose that there must be some sort of lubricating layer between the layers floating thusly about (oil). The
re is myriad research to support this position, albeit mostly hidden from the westward Anglo-Saxon-Royal-Deutch perspective. So that being said, our excessive and continued extraction from deeper and deeper wells ( See Deep Water Horizon) is inevitable reducing the amount of this lubricant available to natural processes. So, as with any complex mechanical system reliant on certain thermo thresholds it stands to reason that by removing this lubricant from the core-ward direction we are causing the machinery to heat up. So some of the global warming we may be experiencing might not be exclusively an atmospheric phenomena. Geo-thermal heat may indeed be on the rise somewhat in tandem from our exercises in this area. The amount of research on these postulations is so abysmally low as to lend credence to almost any such theory, but at the end of the day it seems certain that our depen
dence on 'fossil fuels
' is directly contributing to the trend of global warming, either through atmospheric polloution or through causing the machinery of tectonics to make due with a reduced supply of lubricants; or both !!

So now that we have established all this, and we conceded that there may be others with far more information on the topic; wtf does all this have to do with the title of the article ? I shall no attempt to explain.

Global warming < Nuclear Winter

So where am I going with this ? I would surmise based on my previous writings above that the global warming epidemic went nowhere. What I propose is that the planet was indeed on its way to a major meltdown, nothing seems to have gotten in its way, no one of import ratified kyoto, no major climate saving initiative has been taken up beyone the introduction of carbon taxes and the odd subsid
y to inefficent 'green' power schemes for the worlds largest corporations, so why is this summer so cool, so shrouded in overcast skies ? Because of one word... fukushima. now I know you're saying, but dennizen, surely that was an accident, no one could have predicted that and the cost to Japan has been enormous, surely no NWO loving faction would create such a catastrophe just to prolong the status quo for a few years more ! And you might be right, but lets consider a few points

-harrp is online and has the potential to cause seismic disturbances
-Japan is basically the Wests' live-action nuclear test bed, as historical precedent
-it worked (limited nuclear winter may indeed provide some relief from total catastrophic climate change)

Now I am sure you are asking yourself "is this mofo for real?!" the answer is yes. You see I remember growing up a little at the height/end of the cold war, and I remember reading books about nuclear weapons and the state of the world even back then (yes I have always been this much of a geek). There were several stark warnings about severe nuclear catastrophe. 1) acid rain. We seldom seem to recall this outcome of nuclear war, but the truth is thatsevere nuclear exposure for the planet may kill all life by altering the composition of raindrops, thereby distributing high pH and other poisons to the plant supply; then the animals (supposeing they consume some of the plants in the window between when the rain hits them and when they die), and ultimately onto us through the poisoning of our drinking water and food supplies through the aformentioned chain. 2) immediate incineration of people exposed to the epicenters of nuclear fissile events (see terminator 2) . An
d 3) Nuclear winter. yes, strange as it may sound, these towers of flaming mushrooms burning hot as the sun are only the most visible and short-term of events associated with major nuclear calamity. Once the flames and shockwaves subside, there is the eventual fallout; clouds of particles which obstruct the sky and cause a severe reduction in the amount of raysthat land on the earth and perform their natural duty of feeding life and providing safety and visibility for the portion of the Earths inhabitants not confined to nocturnal cycles.
Now to make a
brief review of my experiences since the Fukushima disaster in relation to these considerations. 1) rampant polloution is indeed well underway. As I heard one person say, the only reason people dont realize what is going on is because its not like an oil spill; you dont walk out in the morning and see your car covered in radiation... birds aren't washing up on shore covered in radiation, you dont see it in your hair, you dont smell it on your clothes.... very out of sight out of mind, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. If it WAS like oil, people would be screaming in the streets. If people saw it all around them, if it was on your hair and visible floating in the air people would be up in arms! But it isn't, and now a days people are so ignorant that unless its written in a big blinking neon sign with golden arches, people just dont understand or care much. Many nations immediately banned all imports from Japan once the catastrophe broke.... animals are being born in the Fukushima area with severe deformities... no food imports are allowed out into most nations since the disaster. If it is that bad in processed and commercial foods we can safely assume that any living creatures or plants in the region are also descimated. Even though the safe levels for radioactivity has been roundly raised on this side of the ocean that doesn't mean that this disaster isn't of some global impact. It is sure that all food products all over the world have been impacted by these events though perhaps to a lesser degree.

2) while this was not a typical ICBM detonation, there have certainly been casualties... workers walking into danger zones watching their teeth fall from their heads, their hair fall out, and their bodies becomming riddled with tumors before they could walk back out of the door. These are serious problems, but with a core meltdown the damage is more seething, its more subtle, your skin doesn't blow off and burst into flames, it slowly festers inside, becomes cancerous and cells grow and rupture, there is nothing you can do but sit back and watch... it is not as horrific as instant flaming death, but it still aint good.

3) Nuclear winter. Now I cannot speak for the entire planet, but where I am we are almost on the same longitude as fukushima, and since the event I have noticed this summer to be far more overcast, far cooler and far less damaging from a strictly thermal standpoint. In spite of the fact that all the information seems to point to the idea that we should be having another record shattering summer, so far, that is just not the case. The skies are usually an even pallor of sickly grey with only occasional breaks for the sun to do its job. The temperature is on average some 5-8 degrees celsius cooler than has been for the past several years. If this isn't nuclear winter, its certainly a type of nuclear autumn by comparison. So I ask you, is it beyond the realm of possibility that these factors are all adding up to the present situation ? Was the Earth so close to falling over the edge of the irreversible climate damage tipping point that even after we have ensnared all this water away for the protection of the shorelines, that we were saved from our ultimate fate by this timely though tragic nuclear event in Japan ? I think it is both probable and likely, what scares me most, however is that I fear this may have been done TO the people of Japan as a final soiree into their reparations from WW2. What I mean here is that isn't it just a little too tragic that the only two peoples to suffer these sorts of nuclear tragities were once our sworn enemies ? If this sort of solution was mandatory for the survival of the planet where would we expect it might occour ? In China ? No that would be too detrimental to our present economic matrix. In Europe ? Not likely since they are so close to banjrupcy already that this sort of event would surely be their undoing... In Japan ? Where we have performed horrific nuclear tests before ? The only place to be struck down by atomic weapons and proved already that we could rebuild, after some time, from this type of horror ? I'm certainly not blaming any one or any group of nations if this was the case - if it had to be done, so be it, but it seems a little fishy to me. We will have to wait and see where all their money goes once the compensation legislation starts rolling out. As the man said; follow the money. A curiousity to me is to know whether there was any massive trading of puts right before this happened, like the unclaimed puts that were placed on the airlines involved in 911.

Always follow the money, numbers hardly ever lie.


  1. sulphur ? pah ! used to be that they limited sulphur in gas because of its warming effects ? no ? anyway,neat to see that I'm still ahead of the curve

  2. your wall is looking pretty snazzy there mr march XoX