Any Suspicious Observers members here?

Off-topic Chatter
44

For myself, I have seen it warm up in my lifetime in this area.
Fact - Glaciers are going buh-by.
Fact - The headlines above are old but real.
Fact - majoroverkill notes that there are forces at play we are not aware of.
Fact - There are “theorys of why the North pole moved 20 miles last year, but no factual reason yet.
Fact - The poles have swapped ends several times.

It leads me to believed that there are longer term cycles which us humans are not aware of. Where I live now is a verdant lush forested area that was under 500 feet of solid ice 12,000 years ago (give or take). Where did the ice go? It was all gone before the industrial age.

Regardless, what I do know leads me to believe that we should at least take the easy steps to avoid man made global warming. Look at the car you drive. Is it a hybrid getting 55 mpg? If not, why not. Do you expect that you can ignore it and someone else will pick up your slack? Blame others…the .gov? We can and should, all step up our game as individuals. Toyota Corolla hybrids only cost @$23,000. As individuals we can insulate our houses. Turn off the AC and turn down the heat when needed etc etc.

45

https://www.weather.gov/news/201509-solar-cycle

46

It’s like a game… let’s push it until sb shows up… JUST kidding!!!

Rat hole arguments are a waste of time and of course I (like all here) think a few here are “off” but this isn’t the place to (waste time trying to…) prove them wrong. Great policy and well said sb! :+1:

47

Daily news for those who are interested, if not its all good. Ice Age Trigger, Cloud Discovery Changes Climate Science | S0 News Sep.18.2020 - YouTube

Our Websites:
https://www.Suspicious0bservers.org
https://www.SpaceWeatherNews.com
https://www.QuakeWatch.net/prediction…

https://www.MagneticReversal.org

Facebook: Facebook
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mobileobser…

Wanted- Earthquake Forecasters: Wanted: Earthquake Forecasters - YouTube
Earthquake Forecasting Contest: Earthquake Forecasting Contest | Win $250 or more! - YouTube
Contest Information: Contest – Quake Watch

Today’s Featured Links:
Polar Ice Loss = Ice Age: https://instaar.colorado.edu/news-eve…
Turbulent Astronomy: https://portal.uni-koeln.de/en/univer…
Turbulent Cloudy Climate: https://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2020…
Hubble Red White & Blue Jupiter: https://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hvi/upl…

48

For entertainment and the open minded. COSMIC DISASTER | CIA: Classified - YouTube

49

izzat “0bservers” or “Observers”?

Watch out for looialike substitutions in site names, they can misdirect you.

50

Heres a good explanation of the suns cyclical effect on the heating/cooling of the planet. https://electroverse.net/analysis-finds-solar-activity-controls-climate-change/

51

This was a great read, thank you. I see this a lot and especially this year where these sites are being shutdown and I have to ask the question why. Part of the prosses is the earth heating up, the polar caps start to melt. When enough melt occurs it starts to change the salinity and temperatures of the oceans affecting the North Atlantic currant, slows down, which is connected to the jet stream. Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees, seawater at 28.4 degrees. Its like a recipe for disaster. The heat melts the caps, the caps change the salinity and temperatures effecting the flow of the oceans, a hard winter hits and the caps start to grow! This has happened with the last four ice ages. NOAA and NASA are starting to realize this in the last couple of years. Our planet can only heat up so much before it starts to freeze and a very small salinity and temperature change in our oceans is all it takes.

Bibliographic Entry Result
(w/surrounding text) Standardized
Result
Spaulding & Markowitz, Heath Earth Science. Heath, 1994: 195. “The Greenland glacier is about 1,700,000 km2 and up to 3 km in thickness.” < 5.1 × 106 km3
(Greenland)
“The Antarctic glacier covers a larger landmass with an area of about 12.5 million km2 and reaches a thickness of nearly 5 km.” < 62.5 × 106 km3
(Antarctica)
“Greenland.” World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1999: 325. “It covers 672,000 mi2 (1,740,500 km2) or about 4/5 of the island. The ice caps average over 1 mile (1.6 km) thick, and a thickness of over 2 miles (3.2 km) has been measured.” 2.8 × 106 km3
(Greenland)
“Antarctica.” World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1999: 532. “Its volume of 7¼ million cubic miles (30 million km3) represents about 70% of the world’s fresh water.” 30 × 106 km3
(Antarctica)
Williams, Richard S. Jr., & Jane G. Ferrigno. Estimated present-day area and volume of glaciers and maximum sea level rise potential. Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World. US Geological Survey (USGS). “Geographic region: Greenland
Percent: 10.82
Volume: 2,600,000 km3
Percent: 7.9
Maximum sea level rise potential: 6.5 m
Area: 1,736,095 km2” 2.6 × 106 km3
(Greenland)
“Geographic region: Antarctica
Percent: 84.64
Volume: 30,109,800 km3
Percent: 91.49
Maximum sea level rise potential: 73.44 m
Area: 13,586,400 km2” 30.1098 × 106 km3
(Antarctica)
Schultz, Gwen. Ice Age Lost. 1974. 232, 75. “The US geological survey gives these figures: The Greenland ice cap with its volume of 630,000 cubic miles, if melted could yield enough water to maintain the Mississippi river for over 4,700 years.” 2.6 × 106 km3
(Greenland)
“It has been calculated that if Antarctica’s approximately 6,000,000 cubic miles of ice should melt, the level of the oceans all over the world would rise 200 feet.” 25 × 106 km3
(Antarctica)
Denmark/Greenland. Greenland Tourism. Danish Tourist Board. “The ice cap or inland ice covers 1,833,900 square km, equivalent to 85 percent of Greenland’s total area, and extends 2,500 km (1,553 miles) from north to south and up to 1,000 km from east to west. At its center, the ice can be up to 3 km thick, representing 10 percent of the world’s total fresh water reserves. If all the ice were to melt, the world’s oceans would rise seven meters.” < 5.5 × 106 km3
(Greenland)
Erickson, Jon. “Glacial Geology.”1996, 161. “The ice sheet rises nearly 3 miles in places, with an average thickness of over 7,000 feet amounting to about 7 million cubic miles of ice.” 29 × 106 km3
(Antarctica

52

Question is not why, but by whom ( X-Files music playing ) :stuck_out_tongue:

53

NOAA and NASA scientists knew about recurring ice ages at the time of their inception. The fact that there are recurring ice ages is taught in the high school science curriculum in the USA. However, that doesn’t eliminate the evidence about global warming and the rise of sea levels happening now. Here is an excerpt from a NOAA report by Rebecca Lindsey, posted online in August, 2020:

The global mean water level in the ocean rose by 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015, which was 2.5 times the average rate of 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century. By the end of the century, global mean sea level is likely to rise at least one foot (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels, even if greenhouse gas emissions follow a relatively low pathway in coming decades.

The report concludes the sea level rise is accelerating, and notes that eight out of the ten largest cities in the world are in coastal areas. The report also states that a worst case scenario, under a high greenhouse gas emissions regime, would result in a 8.2 foot rise in sea levels above the level in the year 2000.

54

Global warming can’t exist when the earth is flat. :smiley:

55

TRUTH.
In order for there to be some sort of scientific conspiracy driving some political agenda, it would require so much expense as you say and pretty much impossible to perpetrate consistently. Science is founded on finding truth. Not falsehoods. While some theories end up wrong, vast majority are correct. The one-sided limited response venues of conspiracies pester science like never before. It’s a real shame how fractured societies are becoming over this. The reactive nature of society seems to call for major calamities for the determination of truth, but even now disinfo is so strong that the obvious climate change conditions are STILL being rebuffed with ridiculous falsehoods like “poor forest management.” People of notoriety speaking out of sheer ignorance with the bravado of extreme confidence deludes the gullible masses.

56

Wellp, there doesn’t have to be any concerted “conspiracy” for science to become politically-driven.

“Money goes where it’s treated best.”

If you have your own theory that “climate change” is based more on sunspots than hyu-mons burning coal, etc., and want to put that to the test, no one’s going to fund you.

If you want a study to prove that 146 varieties of endangered lichen on remote mountaintops around the world will die out as a direct result of “global warming”, people will throw money at you to do it.

So if you want money to do research, and make your mortgage payments, you pick which studies will rake in the bux.

You don’t open an adult bookstore in Amishtown, y’know? Unless you want to go out of business and take the tax write-off or something.

And let’s face it, anyone wanting to show global warming climate change is not purely manmade, is going to be looked at as a “climate assassin”, someone wanting your kids and grandkids to live in a burned-out husk of a planet. Might as well blow secondhand smoke in babies’ faces.

People know who butters their bread.

57

LB, let me get this straight. Are you saying that money only goes to man made climate change pushers? If so, why would that be? My guess is the fossil fuel industries has the most money to throw at studies like the video back a few posts. That guy has taken millions from Koch. I don’t research this personally but defer to the scientific community to do that for me.

Edit : Not a video, rather an article (post 51)

58

I’m not saying “only”, but there’s a fairly good chance. Being that it’s “politically expedient” to do so, sure, funding would be way more likely than trying to prove the opposite.

If you’re a reporter throwing hardball questions to your mayor, what do you think your chances would be to get asked to (or allowed into) the next press conference, vs a reporter that lobs those nice softball questions that make him look good.

Again, there doesn’t have to be any conspiracy involved, certainly no membership cards or non-disclosure agreements, but just an awareness of (as mentioned) knowing who butters your bread. Anyone in the industry who’s remotely savvy will know that.

If I worked at a company with a dimwit boss, and always called him out on his dumb-ass decisions, my career-options would be quite limited. On the other hand, if I did my job regardless and even let him take the credit, though I did the exact opposite of what he told me to do, you’d better believe I’d advance faster.

Added: There doesn’t have to be any Grand Conspiracy at the company, just a lick of common sense and political savvy.

59

I am not getting who the funding money is coming from and what motive they might have to be pushing this theory. Again, it looks to me the existing energy tycoons have the most to gain by funding a few dissenting voices to muddy the waters. Similar to what the tobacco industry did years ago.

60

Universities, for one.

61

It’s all about the magnetic field that encircled the earth.

62

Those industries are behind people like Willie Soon et al. Fortunately, money alone doesn’t make results from any research look plausible where it’s plain wrong. Tobacco industry tried and failed, too.

63

Universities are the recipients of the research money. But who is supplying the money worldwide to study man made climate change? I don’t see any incentive for the government to fund these studies. I do see incentive for disinformation by the fossil fuel industry though. That is my take anyway. The greenhouse effect was 9th grade science back in the 70s before lobbyist dollars turned it political.