Comments on: The Peculiar Phenomenon of Megacryometeors

By: jarvisloop

jarvisloop — Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:45:58 +0000

Note to self: Finished.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 22:31:47 +0000

This strange phenomenon happened to us approx 7 years ago in North West London. On a very clear sunny morning I was suddenly awoken by a massive crash which shook the house & caused considerable damage to our roof. We found fragments of ice in the street along with the debris & on closer inspection in our loft found a block of ice – the impact of which had fortunately been reduced by one of the rafters which had been snapped in half… We contacted the aviation authority who notified us that there weren’t any planes flying over at the time and so it has always been a complete mystery to us!

By: Mirage_GSM

Mirage_GSM — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:37:44 +0000

According to the IPCC report, the figure is 0,74°C for the years 1906 – 2005 (with a margin of error of 0,18°C, so your figure is acceptable). And two thirds of that warming occurred in the later 50 years of that period, indicating that the rate is increasing.
This may not seem to be much, and if it stopped right now it might not be too bad… We are just now beginning to see the effects of global warming: reduction of the size of glaciers, opening of the northwest passage…
However it will not stop right now. It is impossible to stop emitting greenhouse gasses altogether and even achieving a meaningful reduction will require a large effort and international cooporation.
And while the warming is only 0,74°C, this is a global average. Temperatures over land have increased about twice as fast as temperatures over oceans, meaning the northern hemisphere is affected stronger, because it has more landmasses.
And yes, the earth has – on average – been warming since the ice age. There has also been a period that was almost as warm as today, the “Medieval Warm Period” from about 1000 to 1400, followed by the “Little Ice Age”.
Going back further in earth’s history there are extended periods that were much warmer than even what we have today. In fact, for most of earth’s history, the poles were free of ice: Earth hasn’t been as cold as it is today since ther Permian age 300 million years ago.
It is very probable, that – even without human influence – sooner or later earth’s climate would have swung back in that direction. “Sooner” in this context would probably be something along the lines of 10-30 million years…
So if it’s all been there before why is it so bad?
Sure, earth will survive even if a few species or even some more go extinct. Humanity itself will probably survive as well, but in the worst-case scenario there will be severe repercussions.
First there are the effects on agriculture. Even now farmers across europe are starting to plant crops that they haven’t been able to grow here before, but there are areas that will become less fertile if rains fall off. Deserts will expand as they are observed to do even now – though it could be argued this is not due to GW but to deforestation and other human influences.
Last but not least there is the increase in sea level if the glaciers at the south pole and on greenland start to melt. Currently estimates predict a rise of about 50cm on average for the next century – if the current rate does not increase. There are some indicators that it could, but to my knowledge nothing has been confirmed yet.
Even those 50cm would create problems, though, because a large percentage of the population lives in coastal areas and would be displaced by rising sea levels. Some cities like New Orleans or London need storm surge defenses even today and some countries like the Netherlands or Bangladesh are very low or even in part below sea level.
So in short: Yes, while global warming probably won’t kill uns, it is a bad thing.

By: person271

person271 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:09:47 +0000

I’m not an expert, but I’ve recently been informed the the average temperature of the earth has only increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years, scientists who claim to be climate experts don’t seem to want to argue against this point. So is global warming actually so horrible? And hasn’t the earth been warming since the last ice age?

By: Mirage_GSM

Mirage_GSM — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:28:57 +0000

[quote]The one much more interesting argument about global warming that I have heard puts it to rest quite nicely in my eyes, …Apparently, every couple hundred years, the earth goes through its own cycle of warming up and cooling down and so while global warming is a fact, it is contained within the earth’s cycle of normal activity, meaning that the consequences may still be unpleasant, but there isn’t much we can do about it. Maybe we are hastening the inevitable, maybe not, but if it is true that the earth does this on its own every couple of hundred years, we need to simply learn to adapt. [/quote]
Yes the earth’s climate does change in cycles of several centuries. There are also larger cycles with much greater changes that should be measured in hundreds of millenia. In fact the climate we have today is apparently about as cold as the earth ever gets (The poles were ice-free for most of earth’s geological history) and – statistically – in a few millenia, we could have experienced a natural global warming.
The point is, that such climate changes happen gradually over a long period of time (barring large asteroids or volcanic eruptions, which tend to cause a very rapid, though usually temporary, cooling of the climate).
[quote]Even if it does melt the icecaps, if its inevitable and out fo our control and ruins cities – that’s unfortunate, but I am sure we will be able to adapt just fine after a little while, humans and other plants and animals are pretyt nifty like that, I have heard (sometimes here).[/quote]
You have a talent for understatement… You’re right. Man as a race will probably survive whatever earth’s climate can throw at him. However thousands will die and millions (mostly those who are already poor) will become even poorer. That should be incentive enough to at least try to limit the effects of global warming.
[quote]So, not trying to prove or disprove anything, don’t message me back saying I am an ignorant moron or any such thing… just think about it, maybe research it on your own (I’ll try to do my own at some point, but I am somewhat busy for now) if you are interested. Hope this at least piqued someone’s interest and I wasn’t completely useless. (My first post, by the way)[/quote]
No post that is written with a mind open to other arguments is ever useless.
[quote]ti83: I just read recently, I’m not sure where, that a recent study shows that actually, cows are responsible for more greenhouse gases than humans. Apparently their flatulence is loaded with the stuff. Crazy, huh?[/Quote]
It is true that the methane emitted by cows is a large factor, surpassing even the much maligned airline industry, but a) several other antropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses (like power plants, general industrial processes and automobile traffic) each individually surpass the flatulence of cows in significance and b) the flatulence of cows would not be even that significant were we not breeding them for food.
[quote]Someone: 97% of all CO2-Emissions come from natural sources[/quote]
OK, I don’t know where those numbers are from, but let’s just assume they are correct. Without humans the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere was more or less constant over tha last millenia. There’s ice probes from antarctica that can be measured to learn that. So the natural emissions are balanced naturally by means of binding them in organic material and other chemical processes.
Now add 3% to that. Those three % are not automatically balanced, so they stay in the atmosphere. They stay there for a long time. Current estimates tend to put the time CO2 remains in the atmosphere before it is broken down by natural processes at about 100 years! Now lets suppose we can freeze our CO2 output at today’s level, than after 100 years – when today’s emissions are gone – there will be an additional 90% CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is very simplified and assuming your 97% are correct. The numbers I remember say that only 1-2% of all CO2 emissions are antropogenic.
CO2 is not the gas that has the largest radiative effect by a long shot, but compared to methane or ozone it remains in the atmosphere longer and is emitted in larger quantities, thus it is the most significant.

By: BenKinsey

BenKinsey — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:47:46 +0000

[quote]Nastimann said: “Here’s a simple experiment you can do: Put several ice cubes in a glass. Fill it to the brim with water. Does the the water overflow when the ice melts? I guess the remaining question is, how much of the planet’s ice is not floating, but sitting on solid ground? That’s the only ice that would increase the sea level when it melts.”quote]

The ice is IN the water not above it when it is in your drinking glass. Ice caps are ABOVE the water as well as in the water and on land as you had mentioned. That’s a huge difference when you consider the total amount that is floating above water. No haterade just sayin. Earth goes through these cycles periodically regardless of human interference. I’m sure humans will be able to make it through when the next Ice Age comes.

By: Anthropositor

Anthropositor — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:44:12 +0000

[quote]captknish said: “Try not to get caught up in the global warming hysteria.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220“[/quote]

RICHARD LINDZEN, the author of the above opinions. is well credentialed. He also says some glowing things about Exxon being a fine and responsible company. At one point, he encourages that we develop greater skills in physics and mathematics, then suggests we use our intuition to test the validity of global warming.

Certainly his neutrality and objectivity are open to question. I haven’t found a smoking gun, but the smell of gunpowder is strong.

By: Crowned Joe

Crowned Joe — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:31:23 +0000

http://cbs4.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_054093948.html

Pennsylvania

By: Crowned Joe

Crowned Joe — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:17:49 +0000

Here’s another megacryometeor in Florida again.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour…AST03020107.htm

visit this discussion thread to understand my position:
http://conspiracycentral.info/index.php?showtopic=5103&st=120&gopid=44386&#entry44386

By: kwiksand

kwiksand — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:37:16 +0000

lostindustrial said: “this article actually mentions the possibility of megacryometeors

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_fe_st/mysterious_ice_chunk_2

as an aside, until I posted this article and actually had to type out “megacryometeors”, I had read that previously as “mega-cry-o-meters”. (accent on the “o”) :)”

Here’s another article with pictures: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=74596

And a link to the digg comments: (can’t comment on quality of the commentors though!
http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/PICTURES_Mysterious_Large_Ice_Chunk_Falls_on_Tampa_Man_s_Car