| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
What a load of crap. 1. We are already in an ice age. They must mean glaciation period. 2. If an ice-free arctic causes snow that puts the ice cap back, the snow would cease when said cap returns. 3. “And why has the earth been swinging back and forth between Ice Ages and climate like today’s for a million years, when before then the entire planet enjoyed a temperate climate with no extremes of hot or cold?” Demonstrably false. | ||
| Ratbuell |
Seemed like quite a good read to me - and it explained quite a bit that today's "science" just can't touch, or simply replies "racist!" if you bring it up. To your point 2: yes, when the ice cap returns. But that would take thousands of years. Meantime, there will be snow. And snow-melt. Both of which actively put moisture into the atmosphere, which a solid cap of ice does not. SNOW will grow; SNOW will get deeper and will advance southward due to its height (as noted in the article); MOISTURE will increase in the atmosphere until the Arctic has been cold long enough that the snow compacts into ice, and no longer radiates moisture into the atmosphere, causing the eventual retreat. So yes, your point 2 is correct - the snow would cease when the ICE cap returns. But...a snow cap? Will perpetuate until it compresses into ice. Why "demonstrably false" for point 3? If they're finding sediment records with a hard-line divider and carbon dating at 11k years...seems fairly plausible to me. Crust-shift is not impossible since the core of our planet is liquid, so who's to say the crust hasn't moved relative to magnetic poles? They say (although they don't get into it) they also found evidence of magnetic changes around the same timeframe (11k years ago)... For once, compared to current times, I'm seeing some climate theory associated with actual physical DATA. And perhaps most importantly...it's not couched in a "if you do this or spend that or forfeit those" perspective where "we humans" can "save the planet". It simply...IS. To me...THAT is science. Simple, objective fact, supported by hard physical data. Maybe not considered "mainstream" or "normally accepted"...but, there was a time when everyone knew the earth was flat. Until it was discovered that...well...it's not. I'd be very interested to see someone in current times, with current technology, do an objective re-visit of this article and its theories. I know for a fact that Maryland has been exceedingly wet the last 1.5 years (rain and snowfall), and it's nothing like anyone I've talked to has seen before - county inspectors, plumbers, septic techs...something is absolutely changing, and quite frankly, this article makes more sense to me than any of the "man-induced" theories of today. We didn't cause it. The earth is cyclical. Bundle up. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sixty years ago, that was the new, radical idea. The ice free arctic kicking off a glaciation cycle was the basis for the 1977 Ice Age Panic. The theory has been ignored since 1998, because it didn't give the simplistic runaway warming Al Gore was pimping in his game documentary. 1. The snows fluctuate during an Ice Age. Yep, we are in one. The last of the warm times on our human scale in the million year suck. 2. Exactly! 3. Reference? A glance at the Vostok & Epica code sample data show we are past peak, soon to plummet, high temperature time. On a repeating cycle at least 800,000 years old. https://binged.it/2FLvYuX But the above chart shows that between 100 & 1 million years ago, a steady cooling from the warm good times. And cold cycles including the Permian glaciation 300 million years ago. http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapte r_4/milankovitch.htm Thus, yes, we've been in a horrific Ice Age for a million years. Dominated by orbital clockwork freezing cycles that erase any trace of civilization from the brief, previous warm spells. We are near the end of the current warm spell in this cycle, about to fall into doom, mass death, and the utter erasure of everything we've built.... Except for the Apollo descent stages, some go carts, and Mars rovers that will be buried in the sand storms of Helium... Until we develop space travel again 100,000 odd years in the future. Who knows what we would have found on the Moon if we'd actually been running around on it looking for stuff to mine & exploit? ( instead of spending our money on the century long religious war with Sandy's evil backers ) The ore deposits would be in the same places. So we might have found a 200,000 year old iridium mine with a Pangean Republic base, buried under the lunar soil for radiation shielding. So, yeah, thou art correct, we are in an Ice Age a million years old. They are correct, that before that it was warmer. And we are in the warmest time of the coldest times, about to plunge back into cave man hell of tens of thousands of years of "everybody dies" Suck. The only scenario where Sandy the taco waitress is correct and we all die in a dozen years involves Sandy's brothers in Marxist ideology nuking us, or her Watermelon eco terrorist friends release a Soviet era Satan Bug to give them a limited supply of slaves for their Eco-Paradise. Al Gore style Global Warming was, is, and ever will be, a lying scam. Pity. Warm would be a better time than what we are going to get... But I'll be gone by then. | ||
| Hootowl |
The false part of number three is the assertion that before the onset of the current ice age the Earth experienced no temperature swings. There have been four, that we know of, ice ages. And the planet was not temperate. It was a lot hotter than it is now. Way above Gore’s and AOC’s ‘tipping point’ of no return. | ||
| Hootowl |
Rat, snow reflects sunlight in much the same way ice does. Water is just as locked up in perennial snow pack as it is in ice. | ||
| Ratbuell |
Except snow pack is fragmented, and can blow into the atmosphere (see: drifting). Ice...cannot. Literally "locked" moisture, as opposed to particulate matter. | ||
| Hootowl |
But the snow would have to stay put in order to turn to ice. Ice, snow, still locks up the water. If their theory holds, present day ice volume is enough to turn the arctic to a desert. So it stands to reason that if the ice sheet grew from nothing to the present day volume, it would stop snowing in the arctic, and the ice sheets would not advance. That’s not what happens during a glaciation, so I find their theory to be hogwash. | ||
| Aesquire |
Hoot? No temperature swings? Obviously not, as we see with data from today. That may not have been so obvious in 1958. And I don't recall that being a big deal in the article. The sudden 11,000 year old crustal shift proposed may be completely wrong too. Again, this was radical stuff in 1958. The basic notion is that an open ice free Arctic ocean would give massive "lake effect" snows across N. America and Eurasia. That snow would drift, & some sublimate, but much remain, it's high albedo reflecting sunlight and cooling the land masses, accumulating depth and thermal mass until it was glacier thick. When the Arctic froze over again, the massive snow fall would slow, but a tipping point would have been reached. It's the "warming causes an Ice age" idea, possibly quite valid, that was revived in 1977 with the Green Dictatorship riff to exploit it. The Gorian heat wave runaway idea, otoh, has zero historical evidence. Pure speculation. Science fiction for social justice league comics. If the 1958 ideas are incomplete and faulty, that's no surprise. Science is the slow increase in understanding how stuff works. Aviation in the early 50s was overly optimistic about speed. Mach 5 airliners, ( bombers and fighters first ) would rule the Atlantic and Pacific routes by now. But then they ran into the Thermal Barrier. ( not really a barrier, an exponential increase in cost ) So we topped out around Mach 3. And selling ideas for faster stuff? Some dumb decisions were made. In the 50s, the Chance Vought company decided to put landing gear on their prototype jet fighter sized cruise missile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-N-8_Regulus That way they could reuse the missiles and get more use per dollar ( they reasoned ) and if the autopilot failed, a chase plane with radio control, developed for target drones, could fly the thing back to be fixed, instead of leaving it in a smoking hole in the desert. Brilliant idea, it turns out. They had a LOT of trouble with the autopilot inertial navigation system, as well as broken pipes and wires from high frequency turbine vibration. They would have needed dozens more missiles to test, and never figured out many of the problems if they couldn't have walked up to the recovered test craft, opened a hatch, and seen what broke. Often a very simple broken pin or bolt. Northrop used the same idea on their Snark intercontinental cruise missile. Each one cost more, but being able to used them 5-8-12 times saved a fortune. Try getting that past the kind of bean counters in Congress/Pentagon/Harley Davidson had/has running them. Look at... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51_Waveri der Here, the idea is to shoot one with a rocket booster, fire up the engine, briefly, then throw it in the ocean. No idea what broke, except for telemetry. Hideously expensive prototypes, tested over 3 plus years, only four flights, and all thrown away with limited understanding of why? How much more would a parachute & flotation bag have increased unit cost? Perhaps if they had been able to actually look at a recovered prototype, and even reused them, they could have had more data for less money than they ended up with. And to this day, they can't tell you what failed, or what was about to fail. Beancounter short sighted foolish spending. | ||
| Hootowl |
“And I don't recall that being a big deal in the article” Read it again  It was one of the three or four central questions posed. The arctic ice floats on the arctic ocean. The ocean has to be well below freezing for the ice to form. It could snow forever on an ice-free ocean and there would be no accumulation. So their theory that increased snowfall causes the ice cap to form is bunk. Cold causes the icecap to form. Only after it’s already very cold do the conditions exist for the caps to grow. And once they did, that water gets locked up and is unavailable to fall again as precipitation. The arctic becomes a desert again. I’m going with solar and orbital cycles as the trigger for glaciations. | ||
| Aesquire |
ok, I'm going with the notion that the LAND covered in snow causes the cold, and the drop in ocean levels. I'll go back and read it again, but current understanding is that when the open Arctic ocean has the water picked up by evaporation and dumped on the land, ( just like lake effect snow here in the Great Lakes regions ) the heavy snow fall persists later on the ground until it doesn't go away at all in summer, and the reflected heat keeps the North cold, and that eventually the Arctic Ocean freezes, shutting off most of that part of the ocean water to snow cycle. You still get moisture from the other, unfrozen oceans, and from open water on land, but by that time you are well into a serious glacier time for a long time until things heat up again. ( those Cave SUVs! ) Solar and orbital cycles are absolutely the main driving force behind the periodic Glaciation times. But the "ice free Arctic Ocean" trigger effect may be a valid theory. We just haven't photographed it yet. On the Science Fiction side. Weber's "Empire from the Ashes" trilogy. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77733.Empire_F rom_the_Ashes has a nifty take on Dinosaur extinction. There's an alien race that sweeps the galaxy and kills off any future competitors to proactively defend themselves. They killed the dinos. They are coming back.... dun dun DUN! good read. | ||
| Ebutch |
   | ||
| Ducbsa |
Good ol' virtue signalling California! https://www.americanexperiment.org/2019/04/no-stat e-imports-electricity-california/ | ||
| Ratbuell |
It's like the virtue-signaling electric car morons. That electricity comes from SOMEWHERE, guys - your Prius doesn't run on unicorn farts.... My state is a heavy importer as well, but at least we don't preach about "not needing to create our own" or some such thing. Fact is, we're right next to PA, with plenty of coal...it's just easier to import. | ||
| Crusty |
Why is coal bad? | ||
| Aesquire |
Cheap energy is good for the economy & people. Thus, coal is bad. Remember when Bill Clinton rested a gigantic National "you can't mine the huge coal deposit" zone in Utah? Coincidentally right after getting a huge, illegal, campaign contribution from an Indonesian Coal baron? That's another reason coal is bad. Barack Hussein Obama said so. His sister, Angela in Germany, ( former East German Communist Party ) says so too. Who you going to believe? Someone who became a billionaire in office? Or your lying eyes? | ||
| Hootowl |
Coal isn’t bad if the exhaust is scrubbed for mercury, etc. Older, non-retrofitted, plants are not something I’d want in my backyard. Clean Coal though, is, well, clean. | ||
| Aesquire |
The Greenies say you lie. There is no clean coal. The reality is the Greenies lie, and denying technology to clean up coal burning just makes it dirtier. The NIMBY effect & high sulfur coal led to very tall smoke stacks in Ohio and acid rain in New York, according to the somewhat disputed mythology of the movement. The problem with dealing with leftist movements is they lie by necessity and always. This wrecks the reputation of actual science. You say we can have high technology clean coal burning, and the industry developed them & built them. The same folk that want to take your motorcycle and civil rights say that clean coal is impossible. You going to believe rich men who fly private jets around the world to go to parties where they can accuse you of polluting the world? Or engineers? There is a great example of systemic lies. Go to Bing & search clean coal. Snopes, Wikipedia, all talk about carbon capture, not mercury scrubbing. Since I know CO2 isn't a real problem, and presumably you do too, we know it's a propaganda campaign to steal your money by moving the goal posts. We consider clean coal to be technology that cleans up the actual pollutants. Mercury, sulfur dioxide, other heavy metals. THEY change the language to insanity requirements, to capture or eliminate CO2. The hijacking of the ecology movement by the Gorian Global Warming Scam has moved attention and funding away from actually cleaning the environment, and used it to pimp the lies to give power to an evil elite. That plastic swirl? Blame it on the Global Warming Scam. Smog in China & India that kills people en mass? Global Warming Scam. Instead of helping & demanding clean air, the money goes into Carbon Credit /medieval indulgences scams that enriched Obama's Chicago buddies without actually helping a single human. We've moved past The Boy Who Cried Wolf, to the Mob that sells Wolf Insurance. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/b attery_foolishness_in_florida.html The numbers in the editorial,if taken at face value, are simply a major rip off of customers. But there is far more and deeper stupid & bad here. Lithium batteries are liked for the power to weight ratio. There is zero need or requirement for light weight in a giant, battery complex, parked on the ground. Lithium batteries need a rare, expensive, mined ore. Lithium may be the 25th ( or 33rd ) most common elements on the planet, but it's low elecronegativity, means it is never found as a metal laying around, but only bound with other elements. Leave it on a table and it oxidizes as you watch. In simple terms, it burns real good. That's why it's useful in batteries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium Simply, the stuff is expensive, limited, precious, and mining is an ecological disaster. Not the worst disaster, but if you think windmills trigger a NIMBY! How about brine pools? In short, using lithium batteries for load leveling is insane. We need the light stuff for vehicle batteries and hand held electronic devices. Until we get better, and less ecologically BAD batteries. Piling them in Florida to catch fire is wrong. Should be illegal. Lead acid, or better, iron acid Edison cells could do the job, produce useful amounts of hydrogen gas, be cheaper, ( even needing a larger shelter building ) and not make us dependent on foreign sources, like China or Afghanistan. Some time ago, I read an analysis for solar power & storage requirements to supply the needs of the U.S. We would need to cover Texas with solar panels. Obviously Texans would object to living in the shade, so break that up across the entire southwest, screw the deserts and their life, and ignore that it may be impossible to build that many solar cells, and ignore or shoot the ecology minded folk who object to the view and the damage.... And you are halfway there. Then we need enough deep cycle lead acid batteries to cover Massachusetts. Several feet deep. Again, the natives would object, but no problem. No, I don't mean kill all the folk in Massachusetts. Tempting, sure, but unnecessary. Put the batteries under the solar panels. Problem solved, and we only need to poison a few million with lead mining ( and the wars that come with taking all the rare elements and lead from ungrateful savages who don't want mines in their back yards, and be poisoned by the rivers. ) After all, this is the equivalent of WW2 and we have 12 years to live! Screw humans and the ecology! We need to save Gaia! From CO2!!!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/why-measle s-parties-are-a-bad-idea-for-parents/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8831200/anti-vaxxer- parents-measles-parties-vaccine/ While I sympathize with the libertarian notion that you shouldn't be forced to vaccinate, I also think you should be isolated from society unless you do,say, on an island with like minded folk who share your opinions. I'm getting convinced these parents should be prosecuted for child endangerment. Perhaps in a medieval trial. I've studied medieval medicine. I notice that "Then the plague killed 1/3 of the population" and " Too few to bury the dead" are repeating themes. Like 2020 LA. ( Cassandra prediction of the day ) | ||
| Ratbuell |
All that crap is just people rebelling against "the establishment" for the sake of rebelling. Chlorine in the gene pool. | ||
| Aesquire |
Congrats to the Black Hole imaging team! Memes to follow. The Black Hole is now getting Google personalized advertising, and is being shadow banned on Twitter and Facebook for being Centrist. | ||
| Chauly |
But it's black, so it's auomatically good untl proven otherwise. (unless it's a gun) | ||
| Aesquire |
     | ||
| Chauly |
 | ||
| Ducbsa |
They used the same set as the Moon hoax:  | ||
| Aesquire |
Ah, the Moon Hoax. NASA hired Stanley Kubrick to film the fake moon landing. But it cost a fortune, since he insisted on filming on location. | ||
| Crusty |
Moon Landing Hoax That phrase is proof that the only thing faster than the speed of light is the speed of idiocy. "Never underestimate the power of Human Stupidity" | ||
| Aesquire |
Not new, but interesting. Which reminded me of. https://xkcd.com/1133/ "Explained only using the ten hundred words people use the most often" ......... "This end should point towards the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing towards space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today" | ||
| Ratbuell |
Those quotes remind me of a TV show that I see on my preview guide as I scroll through channels at night (speaking of dumb phrases): "Why Planes Crash". Every time I see that, I think to myself "uh....gravity?" | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/q uestioning_global_warming.html Gravity is a harsh mistress. |
