Giant Icy Balls and other Strange Weather

[bostonterrierowner]

And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great. - Rev 16:21

Any idea about when this will happen? I need to protect my tomato plants with some heavy armor plates !

Chill out Simon You are too close to Vatican to get hit

[Gracist]

Any idea about when this will happen? I need to protect my tomato plants with some heavy armor plates !

Chill out Simon You are too close to Vatican to get hit

My poor tomatoes just can't catch a break either

[Gracist]

This isn't exactly weather, but it is a strange "natural event" so rather than start a new thread I'll include it here. Note the time of news report is 9AM. Looking for a 6th person SUCKED INTO ABYSS?

It is like a horror movie, staged and fake as hell.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc9et-DV1AQ

[CTGal1011]

Not sure the truth to this particular sinkhole, but I have had the unfortunate experience of being a rubber-necker in Montreal when a sinkhole opened up on Sherbrooke St. It was massive and if you had been on top of the asphalt when it opened up, you're good as dead. It reminded me of a mine shaft. I've also seen a pretty big sinkhole on the 174, that swallowed a car to the back bumper. They were able to pull the car out. I didn't get to see the car myself, but I did see the hole a few hours later. Again, it was disturbing. Wouldn't surprise me if this guy was swallowed up by a sinkhole in Florida. Seems like one of those "well, it is Florida" believable stories. And all of the media seems to be reporting the same thing and not really sensationalizing it. The only thing I can think of is that his house was apparently "safetied" the year before. Maybe a way for the government to mandate whose homes are safe and whose homes aren't, and resettle people whose homes are on "unsafe" ground? (Thinking Big Oil here....)

[Gracist]

Not sure the truth to this particular sinkhole, but I have had the unfortunate experience of being a rubber-necker in Montreal when a sinkhole opened up on Sherbrooke St. It was massive and if you had been on top of the asphalt when it opened up, you're good as dead. It reminded me of a mine shaft. I've also seen a pretty big sinkhole on the 174, that swallowed a car to the back bumper. They were able to pull the car out. I didn't get to see the car myself, but I did see the hole a few hours later. Again, it was disturbing. Wouldn't surprise me if this guy was swallowed up by a sinkhole in Florida. Seems like one of those "well, it is Florida" believable stories. And all of the media seems to be reporting the same thing and not really sensationalizing it. The only thing I can think of is that his house was apparently "safetied" the year before. Maybe a way for the government to mandate whose homes are safe and whose homes aren't, and resettle people whose homes are on "unsafe" ground? (Thinking Big Oil here....)

I don't think a story has to be sensationalized to be fake. I think there are weird minor stories all the time that are completely fake, just to help make everyone used to believing anything on the "news." A lot of things about this don't seem real to me, and mostly I'm noticing the symbolic calling cards of the fakers if you know what I mean.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hejQheaRaZ8


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkD-r91eaDk

[anonjedi2]

I would have to say the weather has felt decidedly wrong over the last decade or so and particularly in the last 2-3 years.

I'm curious about this statement. What's the difference between right and wrong weather? What exactly is "wrong" about the weather in the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years? Are you saying the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years have seen unprecedented types of weather events or patterns than any other 10 years (or 2-3) in history? If so, how and in what ways? If not, are you comparing them to what you're used to in your own lifetime? And wouldn't that be too tiny of a sample set to make any sort of determination either way?

Everyday I hear people claiming that the weather/climate/temperatures/sea level/glacier melt etc are changing "faster than ever" or that we're having more extreme weather events than we used to (I'm not attributing these statements to you, edgewaters, was just asking for some clarification or for you to elaborate). But the reality is that all of these things are usually cyclical and there isn't much science to support any of the climate doom scenarios or silly computer model predictions. It's all fear, all the time.

The global warming / climate change / climate disruption etc. scam is a VERY clever one and I for one am interested in seeing and exposing climate/natural disaster fakery in the future.

[edgewaters]

I would have to say the weather has felt decidedly wrong over the last decade or so and particularly in the last 2-3 years.

I'm curious about this statement. What's the difference between right and wrong weather? What exactly is "wrong" about the weather in the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years? Are you saying the last decade and particularly the last 2-3 years have seen unprecedented types of weather events or patterns than any other 10 years (or 2-3) in history? If so, how and in what ways? If not, are you comparing them to what you're used to in your own lifetime? And wouldn't that be too tiny of a sample set to make any sort of determination either way?

Everyday I hear people claiming that the weather/climate/temperatures/sea level/glacier melt etc are changing "faster than ever" or that we're having more extreme weather events than we used to (I'm not attributing these statements to you, edgewaters, was just asking for some clarification or for you to elaborate). But the reality is that all of these things are usually cyclical and there isn't much science to support any of the climate doom scenarios or silly computer model predictions. It's all fear, all the time.

The global warming / climate change / climate disruption etc. scam is a VERY clever one and I for one am interested in seeing and exposing climate/natural disaster fakery in the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that it's changed in my lifetime. Whether it's like previous changes or not, I can't say, but here in Canada ice and snow are of course a big part of our recreation, especially for children. I never saw a green Christmas when I was growing up (in the 70s). Now they are every other year here. Christmas break, every year without fail, we skated on the Rideau Canal, which was open for skating almost all winter. It is now almost never open at Christmas; and instead of being open generally from late December through to the end of February, it's now open for about 2 weeks at the end of January. Many people make their own rinks in ponds, and they too often can't make them during Christmas break anymore.

As to cause, scale, precedence, rate and so on I can't say. All I can say is that it has certainly changed; this is an empirical fact to me.

[simonshack]

As to cause, scale, precedence, rate and so on I can't say. All I can say is that it has certainly changed; this is an empirical fact to me.

For all I know (not much, admittedly) our earth's climate has always been fluctuating - and that we're just going through a warmer phase (in the Northern hemisphere, that is. Hey, have our Aussie and NZ members any recollection of milder winters during their childhoods, by any chance?). Now, let me just wonder aloud : could this have (marginally) something to do with the axial precession of the earth - as per conventional astrophysical models - i.e. the cyclic inversion of the N and S poles' maximum tilt / exposure towards the sun every 13.000 years or so? Hmm, a pretty long shot, you might say... Anyhow:



Ok, edgewaters - so I'm not saying this would fully explain your white Christmases being messed with !...

Anyways, it appears that the Arctic is indeed currently getting warmer - while the Antarctic is getting colder - and this trend should, according to some, just reverse itself over time. Of course, a whole bunch of other natural factors would combine to influence periodical climate fluctuations on this planet. However, I personally have separate, and admittedly non-scientific reasons to believe that the Global Warming hysteria is yet another global sham peddled by NASA, ESA, the corrupt scientific community and the complicit MSM. I will, some other time, expound on my view on this issue, FWIW - but I'm certainly not alone in holding such beliefs.


GlobalWarmingHoax.com http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?10

A good read : http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... warming-0/

And just for laughs:
CNN Anchor Blames Asteroid on Global Warming
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/ ... l-warming/

[anonjedi2]

There is no doubt in my mind that it's changed in my lifetime. Whether it's like previous changes or not, I can't say, but here in Canada ice and snow are of course a big part of our recreation, especially for children. I never saw a green Christmas when I was growing up (in the 70s). Now they are every other year here. Christmas break, every year without fail, we skated on the Rideau Canal, which was open for skating almost all winter. It is now almost never open at Christmas; and instead of being open generally from late December through to the end of February, it's now open for about 2 weeks at the end of January. Many people make their own rinks in ponds, and they too often can't make them during Christmas break anymore.

As to cause, scale, precedence, rate and so on I can't say. All I can say is that it has certainly changed; this is an empirical fact to me.

Thanks for clarifying. It's natural that you've seen some warming in your lifetime, as we are technically coming out of an ice age. Do you think this warming is bad? Other than ruining snow and ice related recreation, don't you think that some warming is actually beneficial to mankind?

Do you believe that humans are partially the cause of this type of warming you've seen in Canada in your lifetime? When you say you can't say whether or not the changes you've seen are like previous changes or not, can't you look at historical records and determine that it's natural and not unprecedented?

[Heiwa]

When I was young at Tokyo, Japan, in the 70’s, spring time brought trees full cherry blossoms to drink sake below but the sky turned brown or green. Then the rainy season started and apparently acid rain dropped through the gray sky 23/24, where day time infrequently a green sun could be spotted or nights a hazy brown Moon. No stars were ever seen. Same during the summer except rain stopped. You could hardly see across the street. Things or eye sight improved during autumn and finally winter arrived, sometimes with snow, and the sky became blue and the sun golden! Thanks to high pressure over Siberia or the Gulag archipelago we called it, all the local air pollution at Tokyo was blown away to Hawaii.

[anonjedi2]

For all I know (not much, admittedly) our earth's climate has always been fluctuating - and that we're just going through a warmer phase (in the Northern hemisphere, that is.

This can be considered generally correct but even this statement isn't necessarily 100% accurate considering the earth has seen slight cooling in the last 16 years. This is an unfortunate turn of events for the Al Gores and James Hansens of the fraud which is why they eventually had to change the terminology from Global Warming to Climate Change once the models began failing miserably. It all depends on the dataset used and where in time you start. For example, most alarmists use the modern satellite era data which began in 1979. 1979 also happens to be the year of peak ice and the coldest year since the 1920s, so it's a perfect starting point for people who want to show a warming trend. Of course, we have data that goes back further than that but they don't want to use any of that data because it doesn't fit their silly agenda.

Anyways, it appears that the Arctic is indeed currently getting warmer - while the Antarctic is getting colder - and this trend should, according to some, just reverse itself over time. Of course, a whole bunch of other natural factors would combine to influence periodical climate fluctuations on this planet. However, I personally have separate, and admittedly non-scientific reasons to believe that the Global Warming hysteria is yet another global sham peddled by NASA, ESA, the corrupt scientific community and the complicit MSM. I will, some other time, expound on my view on this issue, FWIW - but I'm certainly not alone in holding such beliefs.

You are certainly not alone, Simon. I've studied this issues extensively, it's a bit of my "bread and butter" so to speak and it is 100% a NASA, EPA, IPCC etc. scam, designed to redistribute more wealth (upwards) and scare people into believing the earth is in danger from a trace amount of life giving and creating gas (carbon dioxide). The entire theory of Global Warming is almost as ludicrous as the moon landings, a real giant leap of logic.

But in fact, the Arctic isn't necessarily getting warmer, it all just depends on how you're taking measurements and performing experiments. For example, temperatures in the Arctic are currently well below their normal average for this time of year and have been well below normal for weeks. Arctic ice area is approximately the highest we've seen in seven years (for this time of year). See here - http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... e_area.png

There is currently more ice in the Arctic today than there was on the same day in March of 1996. NASA won't say a word about that though. Meanwhile, Antarctica has seen record ice extent in the satellite era and had above average ice everyday in 2012. Temperatures in the Arctic are currently almost a hundred degrees below freezing and yet these people tell us the ice is melting. How does ice melt at -92 degrees F?

In the 1970s, there was a huge Global Cooling and Ice Age scare. I can post several dozens of examples of the fearmongering back then, but I'll just post this ONE gem from Time Magazine, circa June 24, 1974. (Note, I have to link to freep because apparently Time makes you pay for these articles now. They don't want people to see how stupid they were and still are). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

Here's a nice summary of more Global Cooling hysteria from mainstream media sources over the last 100 years. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-war ... eeze/30336

And a few covers of Time magazine from the 70s.





Today these same people are bombarding us with Global Warming or Climate Change or Climate Disruption, they can't even keep their theories straight and have to adjust them everytime mother nature changes course. These people continue to predict an ice-free arctic every summer and everytime they have egg on their faces, they just move the goal posts. It's really silly. It should also be noted that NSDIC has been caught red handed over the last year adjusting data to cool the past by up to 1.5 degrees in some cases. Of course they don't bother accounting for UHI either and their selection of which thermometers to use is quite suspect. I can post more information about this if anyone is interested.

We have been subject to this fear campaign for well over a hundred years. Here's one of many examples (happy to post more if anyone is interested) from 1922, a newspaper article about the rapid melt and increased warmth in the Arctic. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mx ... %2C2365724

The ego and arrogance of these scientists to think that they a) know anything about climate and b) think that we can do anything about it is almost as ludicrous as saying we landed a rover on a distant planet 350 million miles away on the first try without even testing the lander. The idea that a tiny amount of carbon dioxide suddenly plays a larger role than the sun, the oceans, cloud systems, volcanos, earth's orbital patterns, cosmic rays, local weather patterns, etc is an insult to anyone with any sort of intelligence and a 7th grade science education.

[edgewaters]

Thanks for clarifying. It's natural that you've seen some warming in your lifetime, as we are technically coming out of an ice age. Do you think this warming is bad? Other than ruining snow and ice related recreation, don't you think that some warming is actually beneficial to mankind?

Do you believe that humans are partially the cause of this type of warming you've seen in Canada in your lifetime? When you say you can't say whether or not the changes you've seen are like previous changes or not, can't you look at historical records and determine that it's natural and not unprecedented?

I'm not going to believe something is so because the media says it, but I'm not going to discount it solely on that basis either. It could be as they say but they are trying somehow to profit from it or shape our reaction to it, or it could be all a big hoax, I don't know. There's only so much you can concern yourself with before you lose focus though.

I think it's entirely possible it's related to human activity, although I doubt carbon emissions have much to do with it; I imagine it would have more to do with the fact we've so totally altered the landscape. I've always noticed on a hot summer day that it's quite a bit cooler when you get outside the city. Shingled rooftops and asphalt get very very hot under the sun, compared to grass.

Personally I prefer it cooler so to my mind it's not a good thing that it's getting warmer, whether it's natural or otherwise. I hate summer enough already. Plus I think people go a bit funny, more emotional and less rational, as the temperature goes up. I don't like that either.

In the end though it's just ... not high on my list of priorities. With all this corruption and fakery among the media and authorities, to learn the truth about anything, let alone to do anything, requires breaking their power first, so to talk of anything before that is putting the cart in front of the horse. Until we get a more honest culture, even our own opinions are suspect and meaningless. So how can we even speak of this meaningfully before then?

[anonjedi2]

I'm not going to believe something is so because the media says it, but I'm not going to discount it solely on that basis either. It could be as they say but they are trying somehow to profit from it or shape our reaction to it, or it could be all a big hoax, I don't know. There's only so much you can concern yourself with before you lose focus though.

I think it's entirely possible it's related to human activity, although I doubt carbon emissions have much to do with it; I imagine it would have more to do with the fact we've so totally altered the landscape. I've always noticed on a hot summer day that it's quite a bit cooler when you get outside the city. Shingled rooftops and asphalt get very very hot under the sun, compared to grass.

This is known as UHI (Urban Heat Island Effect). Ironically, all the scientists and boys at the IPCC don't even include UHI in their silly little computer models. Most of the thermometers they use are in these areas as well which obviously distorts the data and shows an upward trend over time while areas outside of the city are considerably cooler. But this is not climate, it is simply localized weather. I can say with confidence that none of this is related to human activity, we are ultimately ants and nothing more. The earth could wipe us out like the dinosaurs at any point, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

Personally I prefer it cooler so to my mind it's not a good thing that it's getting warmer, whether it's natural or otherwise. I hate summer enough already. Plus I think people go a bit funny, more emotional and less rational, as the temperature goes up. I don't like that either.

Your personal preferences aside, ice is the enemy of mankind. Warmer temperatures generally mean less disease and more vegetation, which in turn means more food production. As a whole, warm is good, cold is bad. The boys at NASA will have you believe otherwise though.

In the end though it's just ... not high on my list of priorities. With all this corruption and fakery among the media and authorities, to learn the truth about anything, let alone to do anything, requires breaking their power first, so to talk of anything before that is putting the cart in front of the horse. Until we get a more honest culture, even our own opinions are suspect and meaningless. So how can we even speak of this meaningfully before then?

We can speak meaningfully by relying on science and calling the fraudsters out on their B.S. People like James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Al Gore, Bill Mckibben, Joe Romm and the rest of the doom and gloom crowd are bombarding our society every single day with junk science, cherry picking of data and absolute ignorance of the facts. Instituations such as NASA, NOAA etc. need to be held accountable for their lies. It is a HUGE issue, arguably the biggest issue of our time. Once they convince the world that the earth is in danger and it's because of carbon dioxide (which they pretty much already have), they'll have carte blanche to bring in even more totalitarianism because this is a global issue and they'll use it to "unite" the world against this non-existent environmental threat. Therefore, isn't it our duty (not yours per se if you're not particularly interested) to fight these people the same way we do with 9/11?

[edgewaters]

Well, its not just local weather when you've deforested a vast percentage of the surface and covered millions of square miles with highly heat-reflective surfaces. If its local everywhere then it's not really local anymore.

But like I said ... cart before the horse. Not only is any data suspect (both that in support and in opposition - which is lying? Almost certainly both), but even if you could validate the data, there is simply no way to promote it that doesn't play into the game, until you've flipped the board off the table.

[anonjedi2]

Well, its not just local weather when you've deforested a vast percentage of the surface and covered millions of square miles with highly heat-reflective surfaces. If its local everywhere then it's not really local anymore.

But like I said ... cart before the horse. Not only is any data suspect (both that in support and in opposition - which is lying? Almost certainly both), but even if you could validate the data, there is simply no way to promote it that doesn't play into the game, until you've flipped the board off the table.

I disagree. UHI is relegated to dense cities for the most part but let's not belabor that point because it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that these scientists do not account for UHI anywhere in any of their predictions or computer models or any of the IPCC reports. They should be adjusting their numbers downwards by as much as 7 degrees or more in dense areas because of UHI effect increasing over the last few decades. Not only do they not mention it, they actually adjust their numbers upwards!

I can't get on board with the cart before the horse in this situation. This is a theory that was dreamed up, never supported by science and now accepted by the mainstream as fact. There was never any mention of Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant before this CAGW theory was presented to the public. The theory has actually been nullified, failed by its own standards and definition of null hypothesis (I can give details if anyone wants to know). So they twisted the numbers and continued the scam. The lies only come from one direction. The onus is on them to prove the theory. The other side doesn't need to do anything other than present the evidence, history and observations that render the theory useless. In other words, nobody needs to dis-prove Global Warming Theory, it simply doesn't exist.

And yes, you can validate the data and you can even use their own (fudged) numbers to disprove everything they say. The cart before the horse doesn't compute with me.

If I told you I knew how to fly for the last 5 years of my life but then suddenly lost the ability and maybe showed you some circumstantial evidence or some data that had holes in it.

Would you need to prove to the world that I'm lying? Of course not, I'm the one making the outrageous claim and to believe my story would be a massive leap of logic. You wouldn't need to disprove anything or lie about anything.