How about not telling us Glacier in NP is growing?

a reply to: rickymouse

As you may know, i had a thread about the magnetic pole shift that Phage tried to take over but I have undeniable data or I shut up.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yeah, nobody wants the masses to get all scared over something we cannot do anything about. The magnetic north pole is moving pretty fast and the dipoles around the country are getting weaker, many of the dipole areas are being extensively mined. Also underground water reservoirs are geomagnetic areas as are lakes and dams.

We are altering the way energy flows through the crust of the earth, that causes change. Yes, CO2 increased in the atmosphere does do a little, but methane and nitrogen from corn gas and fertilizer facilities is way more of an issue.

Taxing us for CO2 is not going to fix anything, we need to stop making all the unnatural chemicals and microbes and spread farms out across the country instead of factory farms. Cows need to be in pasteurs grazing, chickens need to be running around eating bugs, we have created an unnatural situation with our growing food practices, We have to stop screwing with nature, hurting the earth's ability to repair itself.

a reply to: Justoneman

Long before global warming alarmism took hold I remember reading that one of the greatest cons was blaming CFC's for the ozone hole.

The real culprit was atmospheric testing of nukes during the cold war. Specifically megaton yields in 1961-62.

There was also artificial Van Allen belts created prior to that...


www.theregister.co.uk...

The once-classified data records high-altitude detonations that happened between 1958 and 1962, conducted both by America and the USSR, at altitudes between 16 miles (25.7 km) and 250 miles (402 km).

gumshoenews.com...

Bill Hartley Several years ago, a scientist based in Punakaiki (on NZ’s west coast) had come up with a theory that Starfish Prime (one of the 1962 US experiments mentioned above) had caused the hole in the ozone layer.

He joined the dots in the 1980s after reading Earth’s Aura – a layman’s guide to the atmosphere. Author Louise B Young discussed the destructive effects atmospheric nuclear testing could have on ozone. Hartley believes the global warming phenomena is probably connected to ozone depletion — yet fingers are pointing to fossil fuels.

a reply to: rickymouse

I want to concentrate on ridding us of poisons that are man made too. The Earth will repair itself. We may get killed by our stupidity but the Earth spawned us, this is supposed to happen IMO. We have to be Stewards of the land. You and I can agree 100% in that practice or humans won't be here too long in the history of Earth. The big animals before this Eon and the current wildlife that would replace cattle, all fart after eating things. Think what it would be like if Elephants roamed every continent again what their poo will do. It is all natural. Life on Earth is largely carbon based and methane is made of carbon. The bigger scheme is we are basically ants to the Earth. We can do some remodeling but the Earth rules.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well, that is an interesting theory. I could see that having potential to be true. Nukes explosive blasts went way up and consumed a lot of atmosphere.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Justoneman

You do know that this information has been around for decades. Anyone who actually looked at the co2 studies has understood this from the beginning.

ON top of it ONLY being decades of so called Knowledge compared to Eons of data, your side are using a small range of temperature compared to the range of the measurement ability. All have failed predictions.

That's right FAILED. Find me a prediction they got right about the sea levels or swing in Temps. Clearly, it is about brainwashing for some to believe this lie you honor as truth.

: fiddle meet rosin on the bow

Ice core studies have data from a 100,000 years ago. But I agree with you that these studies do not prove what these AGW proponents are saying it does

a reply to: Woodcarver

Ice cores are not all we have but no doubt something is going on, just not what they spew to us as the official position, IMO. Your points are part of the facts.
ETA
star

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: LABTECH767

It is actually quite obvious we have been looking at a few centuries worth of information,with some cheated data being pushed by the UN and Al Gore, against more than just a few 100 Million years of geological information including knowledge of periods of high Ice content, that we are currently moving out of as part of a huge cycle.

If we are coming out of an Ice age it is going to be that sometimes the ice melts all the way and you are serving up the DOOM PORN.

It isn't that simple, unfortunately. Over the last couple of years we have found out a few new differing conveyor cycles in the oceans over varying time frames. I would bet every penny i have on other cycles being discovered over the next decade, covering a wide time frame.

These cycles can heat or cool the oceans further - we simply don't know at this stage as it is such new data. We certainly don't know how this links in to increased CO2 in the atmosphere - some could be beneficial given other climate changes, others could be seriously detrimental.

Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

That political bullsnip aka propaganda should never been there to big with.

'Government literature'.



ETA:

I wonder how many trees they killed to make that trash.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: LABTECH767

Actually if Global warming is as rapid as we are being warned AND if it does come to pass it does not mean that EVERYWHERE is going to become a desert or that everywhere is going to be flooded.

If I could win the lottery , I would retire in style

As the sea get's less salty

The sea cannot get "less salty" due to any means.
The ratio would change , but not the amount.

So it is actually quite natural for some glaciers to grow during a period of warming as these control circulation system's slow down or are affected.

Really ?
Do tell.
I believe that is called weather and climate.

I'd argue against that, but it would take some massive man-made effort for it to happen. I've seen mountains of salt before next to desalination plants (water plants, not salt plants). If for some reason, water had be sourced by this method on a vast scale, the salt could slowly be removed and pumped underground back into caves where it could later be extracted again much easier. Not a likely thing to happen, but if 7-8 billion people needed H2O for some reason, I'd think that might change the amount.

a reply to: Justoneman

I've never understood how a progressive platform could be cohesive to nature, our form of progress is all about creating an ease of life for humans which is in an immediate conflict with nature.

It's about creating comfort for human by humans from humans which would diminish resources more rapidly.

The fact the scientist are slapping green stickers on batteries and calling them environmentally friendly is a little alarming tbh.

It's almost like people forget that scientist also created and sold to us all the products that we constantly find out are killing us.

It's almost like people think health and science aren't a business. Only the most altruistic need apply.

Everything is supposed to exist in balance, long term, short term and balance between. We have become too unbalanced and mother nature has safeguards.

Chemically altering the earth to suit us is the end game, if its best for us does it make it best for nature. That's where we are heading, will that be what disclosure is?

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: LABTECH767

Actually if Global warming is as rapid as we are being warned AND if it does come to pass it does not mean that EVERYWHERE is going to become a desert or that everywhere is going to be flooded.

If I could win the lottery , I would retire in style

As the sea get's less salty

The sea cannot get "less salty" due to any means.
The ratio would change , but not the amount.

So it is actually quite natural for some glaciers to grow during a period of warming as these control circulation system's slow down or are affected.

Really ?
Do tell.
I believe that is called weather and climate.

I'd argue against that, but it would take some massive man-made effort for it to happen. I've seen mountains of salt before next to desalination plants (water plants, not salt plants). If for some reason, water had be sourced by this method on a vast scale, the salt could slowly be removed and pumped underground back into caves where it could later be extracted again much easier. Not a likely thing to happen, but if 7-8 billion people needed H2O for some reason, I'd think that might change the amount.

Did the water desalination plant change the salt to water ratio of the original body of water ?
See , you have to ask yourself simple questions before you post .

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

the salt could slowly be removed and pumped underground back into caves where it could later be extracted again much easier.

Why? Salt makes a good building material.

www.good.is...

a reply to: Justoneman




So much for Global Warming and the flooding of perimeter states. Most of the mass of the iceberg is already under water, therefore already accounted for.

originally posted by: Gothmog
This entire sack of shiite goes back to the Venus lander and the coining of the term "greenhouse gases" that started this fear mongering crap.
It wasn't the CO2 that killed Venus .
It was the methane and ammonia.

There is no kind way to say this: You have absolutely no clue as to what you're babbling about. None.

The first experiments showing that CO2 absorbs heat at a greater rate than normal air were done back in the early 1800s. The first use of the word "greenhouse" to describe the effect of warming of the atmosphere due to increasing its CO2 content occurred around 1900. This scientific idea has been around for about 200 years and has absolutely nothing to do with Venus landers.

There is no methane or ammonia on Venus. The US and Russia have sent many probes to Venus that carried very sensitive mass spectrometers which measured the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Here are the results:

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Atmosphere_of_venus.png

Its atmosphere is very close to 100% CO2 and Nitrogen, with just trace amounts of other gases in parts per million. The only one of those trace gases that contains Hydrogen is water vapor, at about 20 PPM. In general, Venus is a Hydrogen poor planet because it lost an amount of water equal to all the water contained in Earth's oceans in about the first 10% of its life due to being swept away by the Solar wind. At the pressure and temperature in the current Venus atmosphere, neither Ammonia nor Methane are thermodynamically stable; those molecules break apart and release their Hydrogen atoms into the atmosphere where they end up getting lost to space by the process just described.

For some reason, you seem to enjoy just making crap up.

a reply to: 1947boomer

I would argue with the estimate for Venus hydrogen loss dating as the planet May have been Goldilocks as recently as within the last two billion years but that is a long debate and off topic, that said great post and I do agree with what you are saying, still take a leaf out of 'Harte's' method of reply, educate don't berate - if they don't want to listen then that's there problem.

a reply to: 1947boomer

There is no kind way to say this: You have absolutely no clue as to what you're babbling about. None.

That would be an opinion. Not fact

The first experiments showing that CO2 absorbs heat at a greater rate than normal air were done back in the early 1800s.

Read your statement again . And think 200 years ago.

The first use of the word "greenhouse" to describe the effect of warming of the atmosphere due to increasing its CO2 content occurred around 1900

This time , think 100 years ago . And , the usage of the term "greenhouse gasses" only started after the "Venus Rover"

There is no methane or ammonia on Venus.

What ?
With that statement , I would have to assume I am not the one "babbling" and posting out of ignorance.
And , that right there prevents me from reading any further in your post

Denying ignorance
Why ?
Some folks don't know what they think they know

a reply to: Justoneman

They have to lie, constantly change their lies and hide them, yet the AGW crowd keeps believing these aholes...

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: Gothmog
This entire sack of shiite goes back to the Venus lander and the coining of the term "greenhouse gases" that started this fear mongering crap.
It wasn't the CO2 that killed Venus .
It was the methane and ammonia.

There is no kind way to say this: You have absolutely no clue as to what you're babbling about. None.

The first experiments showing that CO2 absorbs heat at a greater rate than normal air were done back in the early 1800s. The first use of the word "greenhouse" to describe the effect of warming of the atmosphere due to increasing its CO2 content occurred around 1900. This scientific idea has been around for about 200 years and has absolutely nothing to do with Venus landers.
...

Yet the person who came up with this argument of CO2 causing massive warming is the same guy who would bury any evidence in his experiments which contradicted his beliefs... As a side note he did state that "the Earth would become greener with higher levels of atmospheric CO2." That is one of the few statements he made which were true.

Since the 1800s science has advanced a lot, and we now know that one molecule of "water vapor" is 10 times more potent in it's ability to retain heat than 1 molecule of CO2. Not to mention the FACT that in Earth's Troposphere water vapor accounts for ~97% of the greenhouse effect. Meanwhile CO2 accounts for ~5% - 8% of the greenhouse effect. Also, water vapor exists at ~5% of all atmospheric gases in the Tropics, and ~1% of all atmospheric gases in the poles.

The Earth also began warming in the early 1600s, or 150 years before the industrial revolution began, and ~260 years before the height of the industrial revolution. In other words, the Earth has been warming BEFORE atmospheric levels of CO2 began to increase.

That's also not mentioning the FACT that mankind's contribution of atmospheric CO2 is ~ 0.00034% of all gases in Earth's atmosphere, and the natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 96.6%.

Apart from all of the above, there have been other "lies" that the AGW crowd have been caught claiming, such as "the sun's activity did not increase after 1980s... Which is false...

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Or the fact that even back in 1978 French astronomers were postulating that as our Solar System was going to move into an interstellar cloud/new region of the Local Fluff, that it could dramatically change Earth's climate. which it's probably why the same is happening in other planets in the Solar System. Which at first it was thought this encounter wouldn't happen for 50,000 years + But we learned differently a few years back.

Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter

Even the interstellar wind changed directions a few years back.

You ignore the fact that Earth is undergoing many massive changes which have nothing to do with the anthropogenic addition of atmospheric CO2 which is a whooping 0.0034% of the total volume in Earth's atmosphere.

Molten iron river discovered speeding beneath Russia and Canada

You also ignore the fact that in the Troposphere it is "water vapor" which accounts for ~97% of the greenhouse effect in the form of warming. Or the fact that Earth began warming ~150 years before the start of the industrial revolution, and ~260 years before the height of the industrial revolution.

You also ignore the phrase "correlation doesn't mean causation" when it comes to "climate change and atmospheric CO2 increase." Or the fact that on average temperatures have increased 800 years before atmospheric CO2 increases, and that when Earth warms it releases massive volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You also ignore the fact that we have been receiving more cosmic rays and x-rays at a time when Earth's magnetic field keeps weakening.

Stratospheric Radiation on Earth Continues to Increase.

Radiation Clouds at Aviation Altitudes (and It's Link to Climate Change.)

Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing

You also have ignored, among others, from the start the fact that Earth has not been the only planet that has been undergoing dramatic climate change.

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

Climate Change Occurring in Every Planet in Solar System

Or the fact that is continuing to happen and astronomers/astrophysicists don't know why.

Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

You, and the rest of the AGW crowd also ingore that even Obama's EPA's chief had to admit that the whole "anthropogenic CO2 claim is about "reinventing a global economy" and not really about "saving the Earth and mankind."

EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'



You do ignore a lot for convenience and because you can never admit being wrong.

This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

a reply to: Justoneman

Well, they only have cohesive global climate data going back to 1880. Even if they went back all the way to year 1000 AD that's barely flea flick of time for for the planet itself. Surely it's cycles are bigger than wet can predict. We know that climate changes radically add time goes on. Ice ages, tropical ages, great flood, extreme drought, comfortable conditions.

Scientists spend too much time trying to self-aggrandize our species, and not enough time objectively studying the natural design they are all so concerned with.