collapse

Author Topic: Worsening Weather, Earthquakes, Vortices, Volcanoes, CMEs ... What's Up?  (Read 124618 times)

Offline ArMaP

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gold 770
That chart's time axis starts at 10,000 years before present, so that "Today" arrow is misleading.

Quote
And now even NASA is saying ICE AGE
Where do they say "ICE AGE"? I could only see reference to the "little ice age".

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21309
  • Gold 903
When Japan had their BIG ONE...

people bought Potasium Iodide pills and Geiger Counters 

They bought so many Pills in regions that had no need for them that the areas that DID need them had no supply

A $10.00 bottle was selling on Ebay for over $300.00. There is always some Sad Sack that will profit on disaster

Geiger Counters were relatively cheap  This Gamma Scout just before Fukushima was around $90.00



Shortly after Fukushima they jumped to around $899.00

Today they have dropped and settled in at $599.00
http://www.amazon.com/Geiger-Counter-Gamma-Scout-Online-Version/dp/B009HB0E3Q

This was the unit I wanted to buy just before the SHTF for mineral hunting... but now it is so far out of wack price wise   

This is what FEAR does  it feeds the Money Grubbers

Look at Gasoline prices  just before the "War" against Iraq... prices had dropped to .99 cents for extended periods

Then we get the war after 9/11  and we are told gas prices must jump "because of the war" and everyone bought into it

Never mind that we are noat at war with Iraq  (It's called Operation Iraqi Freedome :P )
Never mind we NEVER bought any oil from Iraq before the "war"
Never mind that OPEC DROPPED prices in fear
Never mind that EXXON made RECORD EVER quarter profits the first year of the "war"

but prices jumped to $4.00  and have only now started to drop to the $3.00 range


It's all about the MONEY

BOYCOTT EXXON :P  Buy your gas from any other dealer (because America will never boycott gasoline) but boycott EXXON and their affiliates    EXXON is the NEW Standard Oil




Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21309
  • Gold 903
Where do they say "ICE AGE"? I could only see reference to the "little ICE AGE".

 ::)

Yes the Arrow of TODAY is a tad misleading... we are still a little higher on that warm slope :P  But its COMING...  May be another 50 years but its on the way

But you should be okay in Portugal



Offline 08rubicon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Gold 45
   Almost all world leaders are claiming that the most important issue today is
 'man made global warming', including the pope. The issue is "man" in global
  warming. The rush to control this problem will eventually lead to an 'extintion
  level event'. Wind turbines will be found to alter air flow and cause deserts,
  solar will be found to contribute to higher temps.The planting, harvesting,
  and transportation of food will be reduced or eliminated..atomic power plants
  will expand, and the human race will be reduced to a few stone age types.
    And that is the good part.Consider me to be optomistic.
     rubicon

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21309
  • Gold 903
Wind turbines will be found to alter air flow and cause deserts,

Chemtrail supporters will HATE this picture :P  Wind Turbine contrail effects


space otter

  • Guest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/multi-meter-sea-level-rise-is-an-issue-for-todays-public_b_7875828.html

 Dr. James Hansen Become a fan
Climatologist
 Posted:  07/26/2015 10:20 pm EDT    Updated:  07/27/2015 2:59 pm EDT

Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today's Public --
Not Next Millennium's

In 2005, I argued that ice sheets may be more vulnerable than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated, mainly because of effects of a warming ocean in speeding ice melt. In 2007, I wrote "Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise," describing and documenting a phenomenon that pressures scientists to minimize the danger of imminent sea level rise.

About then I became acquainted with remarkable studies of geologist Paul Hearty. Hearty found strong evidence for sea level rise late in the Eemian to +6-9 m (20-30 feet) relative to today. The Eemian is the prior interglacial period (~120,000 years ago), which was slightly warmer than the present interglacial period (the Holocene) in which civilization developed. Hearty also found evidence for powerful storms in the North Atlantic near the end of the Eemian period.

It seemed that an understanding of the late Eemian climate events might be helpful in assessing the climate effects of human-made global warming, as Earth is now approaching the warmth that existed then. Thus several colleagues and I initiated global climate simulations aimed at trying to understand what happened at the end of the Eemian and its relevance to climate change today.

More than eight years later, we are publishing a paper describing these studies. We are publishing the paper in an open-access "Discussion" journal, which allows the paper to become public while undergoing peer-review (a pdf of the paper with figures imbedded in the text for easier reading is available here). I will get to the reasons for that in a moment, but first let me mention some curious numerology to get you thinking about scientific reticence.

Did you read any of the recent papers that concluded ice sheets may be disintegrating and might cause large sea level rise in 200-900 years? The time needed for ice sheets to respond to climate change is uncertain, and there are proponents for time scales covering a huge range. However, 200-900 years should cause a scientist to scratch his head. If it is uncertain by an order of magnitude or more, why not 100-1000? Where does the 200-900 precision come from?

Why the peculiar 900 years instead of the logical 1000? Probably because nobody cares about matters 1000 years in the future (they may not care about 900, but 200-900 does not seem like infinity). A scientist knowing that sea level is a problem does not want the reader to dismiss it.

Why 200 years? For one thing, 100 years would require taking on the formidable IPCC, which estimates that even the huge climate forcing for a hypothetical 936 ppm CO2 in 2100 would yield less than one meter sea level rise. For another thing, incentives for scientists strongly favor conservative statements and militate against any "alarmist" conclusion; this is the "reticence" phenomenon that infects the sea level rise issue2. "Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise" will be the subject of a session at the American Geophysical Union meeting this year.


Fig. 1. Stratification and precipitation amplifying feedbacks. Stratification: increased freshwater/iceberg flux increases ocean vertical stratification, reduces AABW formation, and traps ocean heat that increases ice shelf melting. Precipitation: increased freshwater/iceberg flux cools ocean mixed layer, increases sea ice area, causing increase of precipitation that falls before it reaches Antarctica, adding to ocean surface freshening and reducing ice sheet growth. Retrograde beds in West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin, East Antarctica make their large ice amounts vulnerable to such melting.

IPCC conclusions about sea level rise rely substantially on models. Ice sheet models are very sluggish in response to forcings. It is important to recognize a great difference in the status of (atmosphere-ocean) climate models and ice sheet models. Climate models are based on general circulation models that have a long pedigree. The fundamental equations they solve do a good job of simulating atmosphere and ocean circulations. Uncertainties remain in climate models, such as how well they handle the effect of clouds on climate sensitivity. However, the climate models are extensively tested, and paleoclimate changes confirm their approximate sensitivities.

In contrast, we show in a prior paper and our new paper that ice sheet models are far too sluggish compared with the magnitude and speed of sea level changes in the paleoclimate record. This is not surprising, given the primitive state of ice sheet modeling. For example, a recent ice sheet model sensitivity study finds that incorporating the physical processes of hydrofracturing of ice and ice cliff failure increases their calculated sea level rise from 2 meters to 17 meters and reduces the potential time for West Antarctic collapse to decadal time scales. Other researchers7,8 show that part of the East Antarctic ice sheet sits on bedrock well below sea level. Thus, West Antarctica is not the only potential source of rapid change; part of the East Antarctic ice sheet is also susceptible to rapid retreat because of its direct contact with the ocean and because the bed beneath the ice slopes landward (Fig. 1), which makes it less stable.

Our simulations were aimed to test my suspicion that ice sheet disintegration is a very nonlinear phenomena and that the IPCC studies were largely omitting what may be the most important forcing of the ocean: the effect of cold freshwater from melting ice. Rather than use an ice sheet model to estimate rates of freshwater release, we use observations for the present ice melt rate and specify several alternative rates of increase of ice melt. Our atmosphere-ocean model shows that the freshwater spurs amplifying feedbacks that would accelerate ice shelf and ice sheet mass loss, thus providing support for our assumption of a nonlinear ice sheet response.

Our analysis, however, is based on much more than the climate simulations, as it relies on a huge body of research by the relevant scientific communities, as indicated by the 300 references. Our analysis is based on about equal parts of information gleaned from paleoclimate studies, climate modeling, and modern observations of ongoing climate changes.

We submitted our paper to an open-access "Discussion" journal (ACPD) in hopes of engaging the scientific and policy-making communities in an important conversation about the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions and the adequacy of current and proposed policies. We conclude, for example, that 2°C global warming, rather than being a safe "guardrail," is highly dangerous.

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion is an open-access peer-reviewed journal in which the reviews and our response are published and freely available to the public. We hope this publication procedure will reduce the chance of the paper turning out to be unhelpful, which might be the case if criticisms were misinterpreted by the public. I think there is an analogy of this paper to my congressional testimony in 1988-89. Then as now, conclusions are drawn from a combination of information from paleoclimate, modeling, ongoing observations, and theory.

Stakes in climate change are high, so conclusions about climate change are sure to draw fire. That's as it should be; skepticism is the lifeblood of science, essential to success of an analysis. So criticisms of my testimony, as described well by Richard Kerr, were inevitable and useful.

Kerr's article is instructive about scientific reticence, which can deprive policymakers of the gut feeling of experts. This is all important for sea level rise because of lags in the system (policies ? emissions ? climate change ? sea level rise). Information is needed as soon as possible.

The most perceptive comments in Kerr's interviews may have been, as was often the case, from our good old friend Steve Schneider: "All that objective stuff rests on assumptions. The future is not based on statistics, it's based on physics." By "objective stuff" Steve referred to the arbitrary choices made to define probabilities of an outcome. The media accepts resulting probabilities as meaningful, yet entirely different results would be obtained from alternative initial choices.

Steve's "objective stuff" defines IPCC's sea level analysis precisely. They choose certain 'process-based models' as first choice to define future sea level. This gives sea level rise in 2100 (relative to 1986-2005 mean sea level) of 0.74 m with likely range 0.52-0.98 m for business-as-usual greenhouse gases (RCP8.5 scenario), where 'likely' is defined as >66 percent probability. Ugh.


Fig. 2. Surface air temperature change relative to 1880-1920 in 2055-2060 based on climate simulations assuming ice melt increases with a 10-year doubling time.

A policymaker will take this as meaning that sea level rise is probably going to be less than a meter even if CO2 increases to 936 ppm, in other words, policymakers will take this "objective stuff" as serious, reliable estimates of what to expect. Yikes! What if someone decided to include processes such as hydrofracturing and ice cliff failure in these objective models?

Steve Schneider modestly described his preferred approach as one based on "physical intuition". In other words, his best judgment based on all of the information at his disposal. "All of the information" surely includes knowledge gained from paleoclimate, modeling, observations of ongoing climate change, understanding of physical processes, etc. Of course, with this approach there is no way to specify an exact number for the sea level rise corresponding to >66 percent chance. Nevertheless, alternatives to the "objective stuff", at least in this case, are superior, in my opinion, but the result does depend on the scientific ability of the practitioner.

Dick Kerr is one of the best science writers. His article contains information relevant to the scientific method in general and how we reach conclusions, not just scientific reticence. He allows readers to think and read between the lines, and draw their own conclusions.

We can always say that more research is needed. Yet as the evidence accumulates at some point a scientist must say it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong. In my opinion, we have reached that point on the sea level issue.

My conclusion, based on the total information available, is that continued high emissions would result in multi-meter sea level rise this century and lock in continued ice sheet disintegration such that building cities or rebuilding cities on coast lines would become foolish.

That brings me to the other reason for publishing in an open-access "discussion" journal, in addition to wanting to give the sea level rise issue more prominence prior to Paris meetings. There is a danger that the public -- not too familiar with the scientific method -- may misinterpret criticisms, which are natural and healthy for science. I'm hoping that this publication process will make that process clearer and thus also make the reality of the climate situation clearer.

A startling conclusion of our paper is that effects of freshwater release onto the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic are already underway and 1-2 decades sooner in the real world than in the model (Fig. 2). Observed effects include sea surface cooling and sea ice increase in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and cooling in the North Atlantic. We suggest that the sluggishness (delayed response) of the climate models may be a result of a common excessive small scale mixing in many ocean models, including ours, as discussed previously. One of our objectives is to draw attention to this -- I also hope to get support for our group to do climate modeling to investigate the issue, because we recognize several ways that we could improve the model.

Here, I expand on our conclusion that the science indicates 2°C is not a safe target. Indeed, 2°C is not only a wrong target, temperature is a flawed metric due to meltwater effect on temperature. Sea level, a critical metric for humanity, is at least on the same plane. Earth's energy imbalance is a critical metric, because energy balance must be restored to stabilize climate, which thus informs us about the required limit on greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed upon at Rio in 1992, defines GHGs as the critical metric, saying that GHGs must be stabilized at a level that avoids "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with climate. Why have policymakers turned away from GHG amount to temperature as the metric with a value (2°C) seemingly pulled from a hat? Could it be because 2°C allows politicians to set emission targets to be achieved in the future when they will be out of office? If we stick to the Framework Convention's GHG metric, we find that the CO2 stabilization level is not 450 ppm or 400 ppm, it is 350 ppm and possibly lower with immediate implications for policy.

The bottom line message scientists should deliver to policymakers is that we have a global crisis, an emergency that calls for global cooperation to reduce emissions as rapidly as practical. We conclude elsewhere and reaffirm in our present paper that the crisis calls for an across-the-board rising carbon fee and international technical cooperation in carbon-free technologies.

Despite the increased threat of sea level rise, I believe that it is still possible to keep impacts of human-made climate change moderate. However, that optimism is based on the assumption that we are close to the point when it is widely recognized that a policy with an across-the-board rising carbon fee that rapidly phases down carbon emissions also makes good economic sense.




it's already happening.. check out the local news stories for any coastal town or city
like this one..it's old news


http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2014/09/22/341140.htm

Miami Hopes Storm Pumps, Seawall Will Protect Against Rising Seas

By Jennifer Kay | September 22, 2014   

Climate change is not only already visible in iconic South Beach, but so is climate change adaptation, in the form of new storm water pumps meant to keep rising sea levels from swamping low-lying streets, city officials said Wednesday.

Extreme high tides in the fall and spring push seawater up through aging infrastructure, flooding some Miami Beach streets with more than a foot of water even on sunny days, snarling vehicle and pedestrian traffic. National and regional climate change risk assessments have used the flooding to illustrate the Miami area’s vulnerability to rising sea levels.

Watching a new storm water pump being readied for installation along the city’s bay front, officials said they hoped the project would make Miami Beach, a barrier island with an average elevation of 4.4 feet above sea level, an example of climate change adaptation instead of only risk.

A system of about 60 new pumps across the city will keep streets dry for the next 25 to 30 years, said Mayor Philip Levine. A higher sea wall also is being built to cope with storm surge flooding.

“The one thing we won’t do as a city is sit by and wait for water to rise around us. We’re taking aggressive, offensive actions,” he said.

At least two pumps will be working by the time the annual king tides emerge later this fall, officials said. Those tides are expected to be almost 3 inches higher than last year, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projections, and they can be exacerbated by heavy rainfall or offshore ocean swells.

Miami Beach expects to spend up to $400 million over five years to upgrade the storm water system to improve drainage and reduce neighborhood flooding. The Florida Department of Transportation also is installing new pump stations in the city.

According to a regional agreement for climate change adaptation, the waters off South Florida could rise up to 2 feet by 2060. Florida’s porous limestone foundation — structured like Swiss cheese — makes the state particularly vulnerable to rising seas because water seeps up through the ground, flooding roads and outdated sewage systems.

Levine pointed to millions of dollars of new investment and development in Miami Beach as evidence that people believe in the city’s long-term viability. Some residents trying to negotiate traffic around the construction, though, were skeptical.

“Are you kidding me? Sea level rise is inevitable,” said Luis Epperson, shaking his head. “You’re going to have to lift the city on floaters or something.”


[youtube]
[/youtube]




[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=039-udc5Sq4[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8ckh3y5V8[/youtube]




« Last Edit: July 28, 2015, 02:12:06 pm by space otter »

space otter

  • Guest
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-triple-threat-to-coastal-united-states/ar-AAdEg95

International Business Times
Avaneesh Pandey    4 hrs ago



A 'Triple Threat' To Coastal United States



Nearly 40 percent of America’s population, including those living in some of its biggest cities, is facing the threat of serious floods caused by a “triple threat” of sea-level rise, storm surge and heavy rainfall, according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The combination of these phenomena can potentially result in “compound flooding” that can devastate several low-lying, densely populated coastal areas in the country.

While several studies have, in the past, examined the correlation between sea-level rise and an increase in floodings, the latest study is the first to explore the connection between the primary and secondary effects of climate change.

“When storm surge and heavy precipitation co-occur, the potential for flooding in low-lying coastal areas is often much greater than from either in isolation,” the study warned. However, even now, “long-term sea level rise is the main driver for accelerated flooding.”

The researchers sifted through historical data of precipitation, tide levels and hurricane tracks to identify instances when heavy precipitation and storm surges occurred at the same time. This revealed a significant correlation between these factors along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts, where compound flooding events are now happening more frequently than ever before.

In New York City, for instance, the risk of flooding from a combination of factors outlined in the study have doubled over the past 60 years, the researchers found.

“If sea levels continued to rise, this would certainly have an effect on storm surges, and storm surges have an effect on compound flooding,” Thomas Wahl, from the University of South Florida and the lead author of the study, told the Guardian.

This means that even without a drastic rise in sea levels, severe floods and storms would become more frequent, bringing the effects of climate change right into U.S. coastal cities, where nearly 40 percent of the American population resides. And, if the worst-case prediction of a sea-level rise of over 20 feet comes to fruition, the consequences are likely to be near-catastrophic.

Since records began in 1880, global temperatures have risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. And, over the last 100 years, the global average sea level has gone up by seven inches. This rise is likely to accelerate in the coming decades as Antarctica’s floating ice shelves -- which act as doorstops and hold back its glaciers and ice sheets from spreading outward into oceans -- continue to melt.



........................................
kind of an ad

http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/28/nasa-antarctica-ice-shelf/

Is Antarctica Ice Melting or Growing? Watch This NASA Video and See for Yourself

The Climate Reality Project | May 28, 2015 11:39 am | Comments
You might have seen the news from NASA last week: Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf could disappear before the end of the decade.

But even while the Antarctic land ice disintegrates down south, and Arctic ice contracts further up North, climate change deniers are touting the record extent of Antarctic ice and using that to claim that climate change isn’t even happening



[youtube]
[/youtube]


Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf: The Final Act 
.
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory   

 

What’s really going on with the polar ice caps?

In short, there’s a difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctica’s land ice has indeed been melting at an alarming rate.

Land ice—also called “glaciers” or “ice sheets”—is ice that has accumulated over time on land. Sea ice is frozen, floating seawater.

Overall, the Antarctic sea ice has been stable—but that fact doesn’t contradict the evidence that our climate is warming.

The ice sheet—land ice—that covers most of Antarctica is melting at the rate of about 159 billion tons every year in recent years. When land ice melts, it flows as water into the ocean, contributing to sea-level rise. Antarctica’s melting land ice poses a direct threat to the hundreds of millions of people living on islands and near coasts.

Here’s more about why this is the case—and how glaciologists know this isn’t normal—from our friends at Yale Climate Connections:

What can you do?

First, get informed so that you can respond when you hear misinformation about the ice caps. Visit Skeptical Science for a complete debunking right now, and don’t forget to speak out when you see climate myths perpetuated.

Then, attend a Climate Reality Leadership Corps training to learn more about what’s really happening with our planet—and what you can do to build powerful momentum for solutions. Our next training is July 9-10 in Toronto, Canada.

The Climate Reality Leadership Corps is a global network of more than 7,600 activists working to educate and empower communities in more than 125 countries to take action on climate change. Climate Reality Leaders come from all walks of life but all come with the same deep desire to make a difference and help solve the climate crisis

join then at the link to sign up


« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 07:23:45 am by space otter »

Offline rdunk

  • The Roundtable
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Gold 389
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-triple-threat-to-coastal-united-states/ar-AAdEg95

International Business Times
Avaneesh Pandey    4 hrs ago

A 'Triple Threat' To Coastal United States

Nearly 40 percent of America’s population, including those living in some of its biggest cities, is facing the threat of serious floods caused by a “triple threat” of sea-level rise, storm surge and heavy rainfall, according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The combination of these phenomena can potentially result in “compound flooding” that can devastate several low-lying, densely populated coastal areas in the country.

When we see articles like this, we should be reminded that one significant fact about this Earth is......it is alive, and it does continually change in most every way, naturally. It has changed much over time, and it will continue to change much over future time. Seas/oceans will rise and fall, and deserts may begin to blossom while new deserts may form elsewhere. Geological evidence clearly shows that some land areas today were once covered by water in ages past. And, water freezing or ice melting in various places around this Earth is simply a part of the natural life of this Earth, with or without man! And all of these such Earth-life events simply work together to make this Earth be what it is to be.

One comment on all of this dissertation about the ice Arctic/Antarctic ice melt to maybe bring a little more focus to what man actually faces with this- there is a lot more "natural happenings" to consider than just what is noted here. The writer of this article notes here, "The ice sheet—land ice—that covers most of Antarctica is melting at the rate of about 159 billion tons every year in recent years". Well, how about the 75 billion tons of water from Alaskan glaciers that melt into the sea each year? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-glaciers-sending-75-billion-tons-of-water-into-sea-each-year/  And how about the estimated 40 cubic miles of water added to by sea/ocean springs each year? http://www.icr.org/article/springs-ocean/
40 cubic miles of water equates to 184 billion tons of ocean spring water water each year that is also an additional part of incoming new ocean water.

Yes, this Earth is alive, and man places himself in harms way, if he builds cities below sea level, such as New Orleans, La. and Venice Italy, or builds right at or near sea level along the worlds sea shores. Sea levels are subject to change, and that is a big reason many people who build close to the seashores build their houses upon stilts, to allow for some changes. :)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 09:44:24 am by rdunk »

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • Gold 364
    • EARTH AID CONCERT
Chemtrail supporters will HATE this picture :P  Wind Turbine contrail effects





Chemtrail deniers will HATE this picture  :P

Chemtrails over Lake Seed, Rabun County, Georgia, March 27, 2015. All photos by Thor.

So here we are, out on a beautiful spring day on Lake Seed (Rabun County, Georgia) testing a new pump on the fireboat, when the sky took on a new look.   :P

(As always, CLICK on the graphic to 'enlarge)

…here, try this for practice:





Well, that didn't work as expected…lol…try these.




We tried to wash them dang things out of the sky...























EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

Offline ArMaP

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gold 770
What chemicals did those chemtrails have?

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • Gold 364
    • EARTH AID CONCERT
[youtube]UdtLTyNOB0A[/youtube]



[youtube]R4CB-GXDcto[/youtube]


Published on May 28, 2015
"What Chemtrails Are Doing To Your Brain IS CRIMINAL"

- Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock Reveals Shocking Facts.

- Dr. Blaylock explains the devastating health effects of the Chemtrails and Geoengineering Programs which have been implemented in secret without public consent.

This is a CRIMINAL ACT since PEOPLE WORLDWIDE "WILL DIE FROM THIS."

- Chemtrails are DEFINITELY a "DEPOPULATION CONSPIRACY"

"We will definitely see a drastic INCREASE in MORTALLITY especially within the weak part of the population."

- Chemtrails Exotic Weapon System Act HR_2977_page1

Links:

1) What Chemtrails Are Doing To Your Brain - Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock Reveals Shocking Facts.
...

2) Wikimedia commons images - Chemtrail Clouds
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index....

3) Wikimedia commons images - Alzheimer's Brain (Human) Thumbnail image)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

4) Wikimedia commons images - Human baby by Drmies.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index….

5) Wikimedia commons images - Chemtrail morning Glory clouds
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cat...

6) Music: Youtube Audio Library
"Wishing Well" by Bird Creek
https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/...


Independent analysis of chemtrail fallout has identified many toxic chemicals including;

Aluminum Oxide Particles

Arsenic

Bacilli and Molds

Barium Salts

Barium Titanates

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Desiccated Human Red Blood Cells

Ethylene Dibromide

Enterobacter Cloacal

Enterobacteriaceae

Human white Blood Cells-A (restrictor enzyme used in research labs to snip and combine DNA)

Lead

Mercury

Methyl Aluminum

Mold Spores

Mycoplasma

Nano-Aluminum-Coated Fiberglass

Nitrogen Trifluoride

Known as CHAFF)

Nickel

Polymer Fibers

Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

Pseudomonas Florescens

Radioactive Cesium

Radio Active Thorium

Selenium

Serratia Marcscens

Sharp Titanium Shards

Silver

Streptomyces

Stronthium

Sub-Micron Particles

(Containing Live Biological Matter)

Unidentified Bacteria

Uranium

Yellow Fungal Mycotoxins
« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 01:38:24 pm by thorfourwinds »
EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

Offline ArMaP

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gold 770
Independent analysis of chemtrail fallout has identified many toxic chemicals including;
How can they know that that's the fallout of chemtrails, did it have a "made in chemtrail" sticker?  :P

PS: the links don't work.

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • Gold 364
    • EARTH AID CONCERT
Nor did it have a 'Made in Fukushima' label.

What's your view of where this fallout originated?

TY…will check them lynx.    ;)
EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

space otter

  • Guest


Quote
When we see articles like this, we should be reminded that one significant fact about this Earth is......it is alive, and it does continually change in most every way, naturally. It has changed much over time, and it will continue to change much over future time.

that is so true rdunk..the earth is alive and changing daily..



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washington-sinks-into-the-sea_55b8f540e4b0a13f9d1b0d4b?

Kate Sheppard
Senior reporter/Environment and energy editor, The Huffington Post
Posted: 07/29/2015 02:16 PM EDT | Edited: 1 minutes ago

Washington Is Finally Getting What It Deserves As It Sinks Into The Sea

Mother Nature has a great sense of humor.


New research indicates that Washington, D.C., is rapidly sinking into the ocean, news that might not make the rest of the country all that sad.



The research, from the University of Vermont, the U.S. Geological Survey and several other institutions, projects the land beneath the Washington area will drop 6 or more inches in the next 100 years. That's in addition to rising sea levels due to climate change, which is melting ice sheets and causing thermal expansion of the oceans. Climate change has already caused 8 inches of sea level rise since 1880, and is expected to raise average global sea levels another 1 to 4 feet by the end of this century.

Relative sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay region is happening faster than any other part of the Atlantic coast, according to tidal records, and twice as fast as global averages.


This is because the land there has been settling since the glaciers retreated 20,000 years ago, creating what the authors describe as a "forebulge collapse." Lead author Ben DeJong, who conducted the research as a doctoral student in Vermont's Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, explains: "It’s a bit like sitting on one side of a water bed filled with very thick honey … the other side goes up. But when you stand, the bulge comes down again."

The report was published in the journal Geological Society of America Today this week.

While geologists have discussed this phenomenon for some time, the latest research analyzes sediment records in the area of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, which is in Maryland's Eastern Shore about 100 miles from Washington, and determines the age of each layer. The study links that geological history to three-dimensional mapping data for the region.

Meanwhile, Congress has thus far failed to do anything to address climate change, instead spending its time trying to undo the actions the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency has taken to address planet-warming emissions. And the majority of candidates for the 2016 Republican nomination maintain that human activity isn't causing climate change and that people who say it is are "alarmists."


"It's ironic that the nation's capital -- the place least responsive to the dangers of climate change -- is sitting in one of the worst spots it could be in terms of this land subsidence," University of Vermont geologist Paul Bierman said in a statement accompanying the research. "Will the Congress just sit there with their feet getting ever wetter? What’s next, forebulge denial?"

Offline 08rubicon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Gold 45
  Of course, congres must pass a law making 'forebulge' illegal, to prevent
 the place from sinking!!
    rubicon

 


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
affiliate_link
Free Click Tracking
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: kits to feed your family for a year by Shasta56
[March 17, 2024, 12:40:48 pm]


Re: kits to feed your family for a year by space otter
[March 16, 2024, 08:45:27 pm]


Re: kits to feed your family for a year by Shasta56
[March 16, 2024, 07:24:38 pm]


Re: kits to feed your family for a year by space otter
[March 16, 2024, 10:41:21 am]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 12, 2024, 07:22:56 pm]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 03:25:56 am]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 02:33:38 am]


Re: Music You Love by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 01:10:22 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 12:14:14 am]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 12:08:46 am]


Re: A peculiar stone in DeForest by Canine
[March 03, 2024, 11:54:22 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 03, 2024, 11:30:06 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 03, 2024, 11:21:15 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 03, 2024, 11:16:05 am]


Re: Music You Love by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:58:09 pm]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:50:59 pm]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:43:03 pm]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:41:30 pm]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 01, 2024, 11:54:23 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 01, 2024, 11:34:15 am]