+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,949
    Thanks
    26,742
    Thanked 46,731 times in 9,532 posts

    Default Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Personal CO2 Lessons for Ocasio-Cortez
    4/11/19
    https://coldclimatechange.com/person...fad39419fdd435

    "One has to be a fool today to believe in the drivel the international press puts out about global warming and how the world will end in 12 years if we don’t do something really stupid about it, like geoengineering, or destroying modern economies to arrest carbon dioxide output, which Bill Gates is all for, now that he has everything.

    It is true, we are in the middle of dramatic and violent climate change but it has nothing to do with CO2 and man-made global warming. However, we have bartenders, who know more than scientists, today telling the rest of us what to do about climate change. The Green New Deal, which was introduced last month by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., failed in the Senate after Republicans pushed the controversial bill for a vote. Not one senator voted in support. Ocasio-Cortez is getting a lot of airtime, the press just loves to have someone to rock the boat. Yes, America has never been more in need of change, and us baby boomers have really betrayed the following generations, but she would lead the country exactly in the wrong direction.

    Before we get into the science of CO2, which Ocasio-Cortez thinks she knows all about, lets just for a moment look at the recent weather and the climate of the world from this past winter. We are well into spring, but winter is still very much with us. Even if present patterns continue, and it snows into summer, there is a large group of people, including Ocasio-Cortez, who will never give up their assumptions about climate change. They would rather die than admit they are wrong meaning there is no limit to their arrogance.

    Most of us know by now that climate is one thing and weather another. At least that is what the press has tried to teach the president but when we still have blizzards in April one has to scratch one’s head and wonder. With the biggest glacier in the northern hemisphere thickening by 150 feet a year over the last two years we have to wonder. With the north pole is full of ice late into spring, just slightly below the 40 year average, we have to wonder.

    Greenland’s biggest glacier, the Jakobshavn glacier, began advancing rapidly (almost 26 feet per day!) in 2016. Airborne altimetry and satellite imagery show that the glacier is advancing about 1.8 miles and ice thickening nearly 130 feet annually, according to NASA. This was published in Nature Geoscience. Yet The Guardian and other publications still reports on vanishing glaciers.

    Another clear demonstration of the increasing cold of the last two years comes from The Detroit Free Press which reported Lake Superior was 94 percent ice covered as of April 5th. At this time last year, Superior was about half covered, and only 7 percent of the lake was covered at this time in 2017. Sure looks like a warming trend!

    Personal CO2 Lessons for Ocasio-Cortez


    Does Ocasio-Cortez know more about CO2 than the following scientists?



    Prof. Don J. Easterbrook said, “Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycles. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

    Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicist and Geo-scientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said, “Saying the climate system is completely dominated by how much carbon dioxide we have in the system is crazy – completely wrong. Carbon dioxide is not the major driver for the earth/climate system. Temperatures are going down, but CO2 levels are still going up. It’s close to being insane to try to keep insisting these changes in carbon dioxide are going to create all of the disasters that politicians and doomsayers are trying to tell us. Climate is totally, completely dependent on what the sun is doing to the system. The sun is the major driver of the earth climate system.”


    “Saying the climate system is completely dominated by how much carbon dioxide we have in the system is crazy – completely wrong,” says Dr. Soon. “Carbon dioxide is not the major driver for the earth/climate system. Now temperatures are going down, but CO2 levels are still going up. It’s close to being insane to try to keep insisting these changes in carbon dioxide are going to create all of the disasters. They say, “no matter what the sun does, it is not important.”

    Conclusion
    We do have a lot of insane/arrogant people who think they know more than leading scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The elite owned press have done a wonderful job of teaching the masses how not to think, how not to be reasonable, and how to believe everything they are told. Most conservatives I know fortunately seem to be immune from this.

    The main issue with CO2 is not global warming its health and life itself. Carbon dioxide like air, water and oxygen is essential for life and health in general and specifically it holds the key to resolving asthma, cancer and many other chronic diseases. Carbon dioxide is an essential constituent of tissue fluids and as such should be maintained at an optimum level in the blood. The gas therefore is needed to supplement various anaesthetic and oxygenation mixtures for use under special conditions such as cardio-pulmonary by-pass surgery and the management of renal dialysis.

    Carbon dioxide is a nutrient as well as a product of respiration and energy production in the cells and its lack or deficiency is of itself a starting point for different disturbances in the body.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Alan (13th April 2019), angelfire (11th April 2019), Baby Steps (27th October 2019), Chip (11th April 2019), DaveToo (11th April 2019), DeDukshyn (11th April 2019), drneglector (28th April 2019), Franny (13th April 2019), Intranuclear (28th April 2019), Maknocktomb (12th April 2019), meeradas (11th April 2019), Philippe (28th April 2019), Star Mariner (29th April 2019), Sunny-side-up (16th April 2019), toppy (12th April 2019), what is a name? (12th April 2019), Wildshroom (11th April 2019), wnlight (12th April 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,738
    Thanks
    24,821
    Thanked 32,118 times in 6,926 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    ... . Carbon dioxide like air, water and oxygen is essential for life and health in general and specifically it holds the key to resolving asthma, cancer and many other chronic diseases. Carbon dioxide is an essential constituent of tissue fluids and as such should be maintained at an optimum level in the blood. The gas therefore is needed to supplement various anaesthetic and oxygenation mixtures for use under special conditions such as cardio-pulmonary by-pass surgery and the management of renal dialysis.

    Carbon dioxide is a nutrient as well as a product of respiration and energy production in the cells and its lack or deficiency is of itself a starting point for different disturbances in the body.
    I wonder why the author felt this statement was necessary ... water is crucially essential to life as well, it doesn't mean that a global deluge wouldn't potentially spell the end of humanity. I think the statement above does nothing to support the claim, against a backdrop of some reasonable points.


    I also don't like the " ... this glacier up here in the north has been growing x feet per day ..." argument - that isn't intelligent or thought out; that's because in the north, the difference between summer weather and winter weather is extreme - in northern Canada summer temps can reach 25-30C (80f+) and in the winter lows reach -50C (-60f). That's a swing of 140f. Is it unreasonable to think that measuring the growth or recession of a glacier has to happen over many years or decades to be measured with any validity or confidence? There is really a lot of unintelligence in some of these claims on both sides of the issue.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 11th April 2019 at 23:36.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    angelfire (11th April 2019), drneglector (28th April 2019), Franny (13th April 2019), Intranuclear (28th April 2019), meeradas (11th April 2019), onawah (11th April 2019), yelik (12th April 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,949
    Thanks
    26,742
    Thanked 46,731 times in 9,532 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Dr. Sircus is a medical doctor, so weather isn't his area of expertise, but there ARE reputable scientists who do not support the global warming theory such as:
    Quote Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicist and Geo-scientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said, “Saying the climate system is completely dominated by how much carbon dioxide we have in the system is crazy – completely wrong. Carbon dioxide is not the major driver for the earth/climate system. Temperatures are going down, but CO2 levels are still going up. It’s close to being insane to try to keep insisting these changes in carbon dioxide are going to create all of the disasters that politicians and doomsayers are trying to tell us. Climate is totally, completely dependent on what the sun is doing to the system. The sun is the major driver of the earth climate system.”
    There is not much agreement from either side, and the fact that it has become a political issue obfuscates the subject even further.
    But I think it's safe to say there seems to be something very fishy going on, with this, as with so much else of crucial importance currently.
    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

    I wonder why the author felt this statement was necessary ... water is crucially essential to life as well, it doesn't mean that a global deluge wouldn't potentially spell the end of humanity. I think the statement above does nothing to support the claim, against a backdrop of some reasonable points.


    I also don't like the " ... this glacier up here in the north has been growing x feet per day ..." argument - that isn't intelligent or thought out; that's because in the north, the difference between summer weather and winter weather is extreme - in northern Canada summer temps can reach 25-30C (80f+) and in the winter lows reach -50C (-60f). That's a swing of 140f. Is it unreasonable to think that measuring the growth or recession of a glacier has to happen over many years or decades to be measured? There is really a lot of unintelligence in some of these claims on both sides of the issue.
    Last edited by onawah; 11th April 2019 at 21:50.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    angelfire (11th April 2019), DeDukshyn (11th April 2019), drneglector (28th April 2019), Franny (13th April 2019)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,738
    Thanks
    24,821
    Thanked 32,118 times in 6,926 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Dr. Sircus is a medical doctor, so weather isn't his area of expertise, but there ARE reputable scientists who do not support the global warming theory.
    There is not much agreement from either side, and the fact that it has become a political issue obfuscates the subject even further.
    I would just say there seems to be something very fishy going on, with this as with so much else of crucial importance currently.
    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

    I wonder why the author felt this statement was necessary ... water is crucially essential to life as well, it doesn't mean that a global deluge wouldn't potentially spell the end of humanity. I think the statement above does nothing to support the claim, against a backdrop of some reasonable points.


    I also don't like the " ... this glacier up here in the north has been growing x feet per day ..." argument - that isn't intelligent or thought out; that's because in the north, the difference between summer weather and winter weather is extreme - in northern Canada summer temps can reach 25-30C (80f+) and in the winter lows reach -50C (-60f). That's a swing of 140f. Is it unreasonable to think that measuring the growth or recession of a glacier has to happen over many years or decades to be measured? There is really a lot of unintelligence in some of these claims on both sides of the issue.
    I totally agree - its a never ending debate and there's a few great and sound reasonable points on either end.

    Its just that it gets harder to discuss when people start laying out trivial or not well thought out arguments, conflation, or plain misinfo / misdirection. It just weighs down the important points that then end up getting buried beneath the trivial items that better align with people's emotional reactions.


    Again, I really have to say I take large issue with using such defence points as "glacier X grew x feet in x days therefore the earth is cooling, not warming".
    In 1992 I did a light climb up Mt Robson in Robson National park in the BC rockies. It was a two day trek up, we camped at Berg lake for day, then made it back down in a single day. There wasn't much "climbing" as there's pretty decent trails all the way up to Berg lake.

    It is definitely one of my favourite memories, I was 18 at the time, and I was just awestruck at the scenary, the waterfalls, all the beauty - even this weird section where you have to climb through a field of massive red boulders - it looked like something from another planet. Berg lake had two glaciers that fed directly into it - Robson glacier, and I think the other one was called Berg glacier. At the campsite, at night you could hear large chunks of Berg glacier breaking off and falling into the lake, then a few minutes later you here the waves from the impact lapping at the the shore.

    Robson glacier fed into Berg lake at a much gentler angle so there was no breakoffs coming from that glacier, but it also ran directly into the lake.

    Such wonderful memories and imagery were imprinted into my mind. A couple years ago, I was feeling nostalgic and went search for photos of the area - what I found, I barely recognized at all. The area was completely different looking. Robson glacier was almost no where to even be found.



    If you look in this recent image waaay off to the left you can see the tip of Robson glacier up behind the bend. When I was there, as I mentioned, Robson glacier fed directly into the lake - look how much it has receded. In fact there was a plaque posted on the trail that showed an old photo from mid 1900s as to where Robson glacier was then ... the photo showed Berg lake didn't exist and Robson glacier end well past where the lake is today - in the photo above you can see clearly where it had been way off to the right.

    Because Canadian winters are harsh, and summers are temperate, all the glaciers grow every single winter and retreat every single summer. That's the way glaciers work - its only when you measure the recession (or growth) over many many years does any indication of what is happening actually occur.

    What I noticed isn't unique to the region either: https://www.sciencealert.com/climate...s-ago-vs-today


    So my main point is that glaciers are not growing overall. They grow in the winter and shrinking in the summer. The topic only gets more frustrating to deal with when you have people using really short sighted arguments as "evidence" for what they want to align with. It's like they have emotionally aligned already, then any silly old thing that supports that alignment suddenly becomes their "evidence" that they argue, but really their "evidence" is only there to justify their emotional alignment. They way it should work is to objectively lay out all the "evidence" from both sides onto the tables, start eliminating the BS, start determining the reasoning why the evidence looks the way it does, then you can begin to draw a conclusion. From that objective conclusion of research and fact finding, then one can find it perhaps appropriate to align their emotions with that conclusion. Unfortunately this level of reasoning and critical thinking is no longer possible amongst the phone zombies; people are relegated to flinging poo that aligns to their emotions. And thus is the sad state of humanity.

    Sorry, I've just lost all hope for humanity recently - all I see these days are a bunch of programmed robots running around parroting some BS they heard on the internet and calling it "facts". I know this too shall pass, as usually I am on optimist - but this month, I can't get past what I am seeing. So I'm pessimistic and angry these last few weeks. Bear with me, its what I need to get motivated sometimes.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 11th April 2019 at 23:31. Reason: added a couple words for clarity and correct some grammar/spelling
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    drneglector (28th April 2019), Franny (13th April 2019), Intranuclear (28th April 2019), onawah (11th April 2019), Orph (12th April 2019), Philippe (28th April 2019), Star Mariner (29th April 2019), wnlight (12th April 2019)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Canada Avalon Member frankstien's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2019
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 1,158 times in 254 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Cue to 26 mins. If you want to cut to the chase.

    BBC Documentary; The Great Global Warming Swindle




    (it's the sun, folks)
    Last edited by frankstien; 26th September 2019 at 16:40. Reason: added direct video embed
    "In real life James Bond works for S.P.E.C.T.R.E."
    --frankstien

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to frankstien For This Post:

    Baby Steps (27th October 2019), DeDukshyn (12th April 2019), drneglector (28th April 2019), Franny (13th April 2019), Hervé (12th April 2019), Intranuclear (28th April 2019), meeradas (12th April 2019), onawah (12th April 2019)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Canada Avalon Member frankstien's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2019
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 1,158 times in 254 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote Posted by Didgevillage (here)
    There can only be global cooling, because all libtards say there's global warming.
    That's my logic and I'm sticking to it.

    Animals are dying because of the heavy chemtrails and resultant chemicals, even over Russia (including vast no man's land of Siberia)

    Warmer temperature is conducive to life, on the land and in the sea. Remember the Jurassic?
    CO2 is life-giving, according to late Professor Robert Carter. He must be right, because wikipedia calls him a denier.
    We have been getting consecutively colder winters in my part of the world for 3 years now. There are still warm spells in the summer, but these winters are becoming quite a trial. The coldest temperature I have experienced on the coast at this latitude was this last winter in February. 12 degrees F. The coldest I have ever felt before in this part of Canada was 15 degrees F. I know that is nothing compared to what they get back east and up north, but this is by the Pacific Ocean--it's getting colder not warmer.

    Climate change is about charging more taxes for a fictional situation they have created in the media. If they tell you it's true on TV most people believe it. There's also the peer pressure syndrome, yes Libs are big into it and don't want to hear anything else. I tried to tell a good friend of mine about this and she's really intelligent, but won't even listen to an alternate view on the climate change debate.

    See my post above and follow the cue directions--it's all about the solar cycles of the sun that control our Earth's temp. It was much warmer back in the medieval warm period (1000-1300 AD), so warm in fact they were growing grapes and making wine in England.
    "In real life James Bond works for S.P.E.C.T.R.E."
    --frankstien

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to frankstien For This Post:

    Baby Steps (27th October 2019), Bob (12th April 2019), Didgevillage (26th April 2019), drneglector (28th April 2019), Maknocktomb (29th April 2019), onawah (12th April 2019), Orph (12th April 2019)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    I am seeing weather cycles from the late 1980's hitting in Colorado and across the midwest - to me it looks like a long term cycle that seems quite natural, and tracking with solar sunspot cycles, either directly or part of some sub-harmonic, pattern.

    There was a large geomagnetic storm in 1989, and possibly one can take a look at the geomagnetic storms to track weather cycles too. I recall looking at the satellite visible of the cloud pattern at that time and noted a particular geometry and extent of spread. Saw that again recently. The difference is in the lack of geomagnetic storms due to no massive CME's. A cooling sun though could reduce the 2degree worry we keep hearing about.

    "everyone talks about the weather but cannot do anything about it.." if we stopped all hydrocarbon fuel burning there would still be volcanic output, and evaporation from the oceans still contributing to water vapor which is really a strong green house gas.

    water vapor ref: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...ion=watervapor
    global cooling potential with solar output reduction: https://www.livescience.com/61716-su...l-warming.html

  14. Link to Post #8
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,738
    Thanks
    24,821
    Thanked 32,118 times in 6,926 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote Posted by frankstien (here)
    Quote Posted by Didgevillage (here)
    There can only be global cooling, because all libtards say there's global warming.
    That's my logic and I'm sticking to it.

    Animals are dying because of the heavy chemtrails and resultant chemicals, even over Russia (including vast no man's land of Siberia)

    Warmer temperature is conducive to life, on the land and in the sea. Remember the Jurassic?
    CO2 is life-giving, according to late Professor Robert Carter. He must be right, because wikipedia calls him a denier.
    We have been getting consecutively colder winters in my part of the world for 3 years now. There are still warm spells in the summer, but these winters are becoming quite a trial. The coldest temperature I have experienced on the coast at this latitude was this last winter in February. 12 degrees F. The coldest I have ever felt before in this part of Canada was 15 degrees F. I know that is nothing compared to what they get back east and up north, but this is by the Pacific Ocean--it's getting colder not warmer.

    Climate change is about charging more taxes for a fictional situation they have created in the media. If they tell you it's true on TV most people believe it. There's also the peer pressure syndrome, yes Libs are big into it and don't want to hear anything else. I tried to tell a good friend of mine about this and she's really intelligent, but won't even listen to an alternate view on the climate change debate.

    See my post above and follow the cue directions--it's all about the solar cycles of the sun that control our Earth's temp. It was much warmer back in the medieval warm period (1000-1300 AD), so warm in fact they were growing grapes and making wine in England.
    The earth could be cooling instead of heating, let's explore that (although anecdotal evidence of three winters in one location isn't any type of indicator, but thanks for sharing that ).

    The glaciers in the mountains of the world are receding, this is known and provable, and as mentioned above something I have personally experienced. Let's not debate that. So what could cause glaciers to be receding in a "cooling" period?

    Dry air perhaps? (I've tossed this out on a previous thread a while back but I am sure everyone just thought I was being a sarcastic ass) Since glaciers are fed by mountain snow pack, snow must fall to keep glaciers fed. No snow, and glaciers will not be able to get as large, causing them to recede more than normal in the summer months, causing overall recession.

    Let's assume the air is getting more dry ... why is it getting more dry? Well the only major way that can happen is if the rate of evaporation of the oceans and lakes has decreased for some reason ... what could that reason be? Less direct energy from the sun hitting the oceans perhaps?

    Let's assume so ... why is there less direct sun hitting the oceans? More cloud cover perhaps? What could cause that? Maybe an increase in cloud development from contrails / spraying from airplanes? (side note: some records indicate that the global temp of the earth increased a few degrees while all the planes in the world were grounded after 9/11 - this lend plausibility that this increased cloud cover created from contrails / spraying may have a very significant impact)

    This could possibly explain why glaciers are receding regardless of what the global temps are doing ...

    Plausible theory? Or just another **** theory in a sea full already full of **** theories?
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 12th April 2019 at 19:13.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Intranuclear (28th April 2019)

  16. Link to Post #9
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    315
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    There are three symptoms of Ice Age glacial I read decades ago in a geology book in Japan.

    Strong, prevailing, westerly wind
    Drying up in the inner parts of major continents and
    Pronounced volcanic (and earthquake) activities throughout the world.

    All these three are happening in recent record.

    The book also noted that the temperature of the deep-level Atlantic Ocean is constantly dropping, no matter what the surface temperature in the Pacific may be.

    Remember videos of huge chunks of ice falling off the coast of Greenland (as as a propaganda for "global warming")?
    These chunks of ice were being pushed off glaciers there because these glaciers are growing in higher elevations in Greenland.

  17. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,949
    Thanks
    26,742
    Thanked 46,731 times in 9,532 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    SOME glaciers are receding, some are growing.
    Temperatures are rising in some areas, dropping in others.
    Though the prevailing theories are pro-global warming, there are still reports breaking through from credible sources which present a different picture. Such as:
    https://principia-scientific.org/cli...ciers-growing/
    "Climate Shock: 90 Percent Of The World’s Glaciers Are GROWING
    Published on November 26, 2016
    Written by iceagenow.info

    "A new NASA study, released on Friday, admits that ice is accumulating in Antarctica. Satellite measurements show an 82-112 gigaton-a-year net ice gain. That’s 82-112 billion tons per year! Nine zeroes!

    in other words that is 112,000,000,000 tons. Per year.

    It’s hard to comprehend how much ice that really is, so let’s put it in perspective. Let’s assume that they’re talking short tons (2,000 lbs). That’s about the weight of an old VW Beetle.

    Those old Beetles measured 14 feet long. Multiply 112 billion by 14 feet and you get 1,560 billion feet. Divide that by the distance from the earth to the moon (239,000 miles), and you’d have a string of VW Beetles stretching all the way to the moon.

    Not once, not twice, but 45 times. All the way to the moon. That’s a helluva lot of new ice. Every single year. And we’re worried about global warming?

    Not only is the Antarctic Ice Sheet growing, NASA admits that the growth is actually reducing sea-level rise. This also confirms what I’ve been saying all along. Antarctica contains 90 percent of the earth’s ice. If the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing, wouldn’t that mean that more than 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing?

    Here are excerpts, taken from NASA’s own website:

    “NASA – Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing”
    A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

    The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

    According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

    “We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

    Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

    The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

    They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

    The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year.

    “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said.

    See entire NASA article:
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

    Abstract of the paper from the Journal of Glaciology:
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...cqo4.alexandra "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    petra (23rd April 2019)

  19. Link to Post #11
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,738
    Thanks
    24,821
    Thanked 32,118 times in 6,926 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote "A new NASA study, released on Friday, admits that ice is accumulating in Antarctica. Satellite measurements show an 82-112 gigaton-a-year net ice gain. That’s 82-112 billion tons per year! Nine zeroes!

    in other words that is 112,000,000,000 tons. Per year.

    It’s hard to comprehend how much ice that really is, so let’s put it in perspective. Let’s assume that they’re talking short tons (2,000 lbs). That’s about the weight of an old VW Beetle.

    Those old Beetles measured 14 feet long. Multiply 112 billion by 14 feet and you get 1,560 billion feet. Divide that by the distance from the earth to the moon (239,000 miles), and you’d have a string of VW Beetles stretching all the way to the moon.

    Is this meant to be serious?

    A chunk of ice that is 14 ft by 6 ft 6 ft (vw beetle sized) weighs over 13 tonnes or just shy of 30,000 lbs ... not 2000lbs ... but hey, the author is only off by 28,000 pounds (or by factor of 93).

    Close enough for a global warming study right? This is obviously one topic where people believe no one will do a little verification on the claims. I mean, its so far off of reality I have to question the entire article and claim (which I shouldn't do, I know but seriously folks ... I can't take seriously whoever put these numbers together ... what a horrific conflation of mind bending bull****).

    2000lbs of ice fits into a block less than 3 feet by three feet by three feet - not hard to determine, and not a chunk of ice the size of a VW beetle ( ... what?!?)

    But yeah, the arctic makes enough EXTRA ice to make a land bridge to the moon and back 45 times every year? that sounds plausible ... who writes this stuff???!!

    Seriously I can't take any of this BS seriously ... its all BS ... complete and utter bull****).

    I'm not just talking about the one side -- its the same from both sides of the argument ... 99% of the people writing this stuff don't even seem to have a grade 12 level of education ...

    If my math seems too advance for anyone to know whether I am telling the truth, and they want to verify my claims here, please do, you can use this to help: https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/weight-to-volume

    Man this is frustrating ...

    One thing I have learned in my life though is that the Truth needs no BS to try to back it up.


    -----

    Let me lighten up my "too serious" post here a bit ....

    How much does the average python weigh? Well it weighs the same as two African bull elephants. Allow me to explain, as I am the expert on snake weight. You see the average python length is about 18 feet long - the same length as a giraffe is tall.

    Now if you took a giraffe and laid down on the ground, it would take two African bull elephants standing in a line, to reach from one end of the laying giraffe, to the other end. So you can obviously see that the average 18 ft python weighs the same as two African bull elephants. Trust me, I'm an expert.

    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 13th April 2019 at 00:33.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Hym (11th November 2019), Philippe (28th April 2019), Star Mariner (29th April 2019), Sunny-side-up (16th April 2019)

  21. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,949
    Thanks
    26,742
    Thanked 46,731 times in 9,532 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    I couldn't say, DeDukshyn (math is hardly my strong suit). Perhaps they misquoted?
    But here is the NASA article:
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses
    " A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

    The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

    According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

    “We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

    Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

    But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

    The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

    Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

    “At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

    The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

    Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

    “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    “The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.

    "Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.

    To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”

    Related Link

    Learn more about this study
    Maria-José Viñas
    NASA's Earth Science News Team
    Last Updated: Aug. 6, 2017
    Editor: Rob Garner "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (13th April 2019)

  23. Link to Post #13
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    45
    Posts
    7,738
    Thanks
    24,821
    Thanked 32,118 times in 6,926 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Well I'm far more expecting an author making extremely bold claims to actually know a little or do at least SOME verification before publishing those bold claims ... from a website called "principia-scientific" no less ... I'm not really expecting you to do the math, but maybe if for someone who is writing or publishing "science" articles on a "science" website ... too much to ask??

    Its conflation. 2000lbs of ice is a small block, not "the size of a VW bug" ... the author obviously doesn't understand that density might have something to do with weight and size, or, it was written that way purposely.

    As I said, I know dismissing the entire claim based on that isn't what I should be doing, but its really hard when its obvious some people are taking some stats and twisting them to try to sell a point.


    BTW I fixed up my previous post ... its a little lighter now. I'm still angry.
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 13th April 2019 at 00:35.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    onawah (13th April 2019), petra (23rd April 2019)

  25. Link to Post #14
    Canada Avalon Member frankstien's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2019
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 1,158 times in 254 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by frankstien (here)
    Quote Posted by Didgevillage (here)
    There can only be global cooling, because all libtards say there's global warming.
    That's my logic and I'm sticking to it.

    Animals are dying because of the heavy chemtrails and resultant chemicals, even over Russia (including vast no man's land of Siberia)

    Warmer temperature is conducive to life, on the land and in the sea. Remember the Jurassic?
    CO2 is life-giving, according to late Professor Robert Carter. He must be right, because wikipedia calls him a denier.
    We have been getting consecutively colder winters in my part of the world for 3 years now. There are still warm spells in the summer, but these winters are becoming quite a trial. The coldest temperature I have experienced on the coast at this latitude was this last winter in February. 12 degrees F. The coldest I have ever felt before in this part of Canada was 15 degrees F. I know that is nothing compared to what they get back east and up north, but this is by the Pacific Ocean--it's getting colder not warmer.

    Climate change is about charging more taxes for a fictional situation they have created in the media. If they tell you it's true on TV most people believe it. There's also the peer pressure syndrome, yes Libs are big into it and don't want to hear anything else. I tried to tell a good friend of mine about this and she's really intelligent, but won't even listen to an alternate view on the climate change debate.

    See my post above and follow the cue directions--it's all about the solar cycles of the sun that control our Earth's temp. It was much warmer back in the medieval warm period (1000-1300 AD), so warm in fact they were growing grapes and making wine in England.
    The earth could be cooling instead of heating, let's explore that (although anecdotal evidence of three winters in one location isn't any type of indicator, but thanks for sharing that ).

    The glaciers in the mountains of the world are receding, this is known and provable, and as mentioned above something I have personally experienced. Let's not debate that. So what could cause glaciers to be receding in a "cooling" period?

    Dry air perhaps? (I've tossed this out on a previous thread a while back but I am sure everyone just thought I was being a sarcastic ass) Since glaciers are fed by mountain snow pack, snow must fall to keep glaciers fed. No snow, and glaciers will not be able to get as large, causing them to recede more than normal in the summer months, causing overall recession.

    Let's assume the air is getting more dry ... why is it getting more dry? Well the only major way that can happen is if the rate of evaporation of the oceans and lakes has decreased for some reason ... what could that reason be? Less direct energy from the sun hitting the oceans perhaps?

    Let's assume so ... why is there less direct sun hitting the oceans? More cloud cover perhaps? What could cause that? Maybe an increase in cloud development from contrails / spraying from airplanes? (side note: some records indicate that the global temp of the earth increased a few degrees while all the planes in the world were grounded after 9/11 - this lend plausibility that this increased cloud cover created from contrails / spraying may have a very significant impact)

    This could possibly explain why glaciers are receding regardless of what the global temps are doing ...

    Plausible theory? Or just another **** theory in a sea full already full of **** theories?
    You're welcome.
    CO2 is a by-product of warming and follows warming by hundreds of years before it increases. It is the Sun that controls our temperatures. If the Sun is very active: solar flares, increased solar wind, then fewer gamma rays get through our atmosphere. These gamma rays interact with the ocean's moisture and form clouds. Clouds cause cooling on the Earth. High activity on the Sun, less gamma rays get through, less clouds created--warmer temps. Less activity on the sun, more gamma rays get through, more clouds created, leading to cooler temperatures. Just watch the video I posted above, the climate scientists walk the viewer through it.

    P.S. related--Global Dimming
    https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-...ng-planet.html

    P.P.S. Of course with the weather war on--HAARP, Chemtrail heating and cooling, violent weather reactions to the mad scientists playing with Mother Nature--all bets are off on natural weather--so your theories may find some validity there.
    Last edited by frankstien; 13th April 2019 at 22:52.
    "In real life James Bond works for S.P.E.C.T.R.E."
    --frankstien

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to frankstien For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (23rd April 2019), DeDukshyn (28th April 2019), Didgevillage (26th April 2019), onawah (13th April 2019)

  27. Link to Post #15
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    315
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    It is possible with HAARP to heat up certain locations on earth, let's say certain spots on Greenland to melt specific glaciers. That's exactly why there are conflicting reports about Greenland ice sheets thinning/thickening.

    But there is no doubt, overall, that ice sheets and glaciers on Greenland are growing, meaning that "global warming" is false.
    https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/meltin...growing-again/

  28. Link to Post #16
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    10th August 2016
    Age
    56
    Posts
    46
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 132 times in 42 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    It's funny how some folk can make themselves look a bit dim by not thinking through ( or researching a bit?) their argument before committing it to the page?

    "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!"......

    For every degree we raise our planets temp by we increase its ability to hold water vapour by an average of 7%

    Of course that is a global 'average' and we know swathes of the planet have very low relative humidity meaning other areas benefit from their 'increase water vapour'

    When you look at our global flooding record the past 5 years you can see the results!

    Why 5 years? Well the Dimming the dirty,sulphur rich coal that hastened China into the world of industrialisation has had to be tamed by the Chinese as their urban populations suffered under their pall of pollution.

    The technologies to 'scrub' their emissions were developed in the west when it placed 'clean air' regulations in its stat books

    That this 'clean up' of the pollution directly downwind of China meant far more solar reaching the surface of the Pacific there.

    At the same time the 15 to 30 year cycle called the 'Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation' flipped into its positive, AGW augmenting phase.

    Since 2014 we have seen top 5 global temps posted each year and this year will be no exception

    We have just seen the Southern Hemisphere have a record warm summer so what do you think the Northern hemisphere will see this time?

    Already Arctic Sea Ice is at record low extent for the time of year and looks likely to see out April as lowest. 'Perfect melt storm' type losses yet no 'perfect melt storm synoptics'?

    in 2016 over 7,000 'hillocks' grew across Yamal ( Russia's Natural Gas producing region?) and the lead scientist on the erupted craters ( back in 2015?) in Yamal gives them a 3 year lifespan from growth to eruption.

    What will we see across Yamal this summer? Do the reserves erupting these masses link into the the CH4 capped below?

    We are told not to expect a 'methane Burp' from the Arctic......but that was before reindeer herders were seeing fiery explosions in their landscape and hewn out craters pocking their land!

    We face another 25 years of accelerating warming across the planet ( on top of our AGW forcings) and so those catching the polar plunges would be better served figuring why their tiny patch is now copping the Arctic cold as warm air pushes it out of the basin to see if the pattern will last?. The rest of us are doing fine with the UK hitting 70f at the end of Feb!!!

  29. Link to Post #17
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,949
    Thanks
    26,742
    Thanked 46,731 times in 9,532 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    I took the time to watch the whole documentary, and this is far the most convincing and thorough explanation of what is really going on, and why, that I've seen thus far, Thanks for posting!

    Quote Posted by frankstien (here)
    Cue to 26 mins. If you want to cut to the chase.

    BBC Documentary; The Great Global Warming Swindle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Baby Steps (27th October 2019), Didgevillage (26th April 2019), frankstien (26th April 2019)

  31. Link to Post #18
    Canada Avalon Member frankstien's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2019
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 1,158 times in 254 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    I took the time to watch the whole documentary, and this is far the most convincing and thorough explanation of what is really going on, and why, that I've seen thus far, Thanks for posting!

    Quote Posted by frankstien (here)
    Cue to 26 mins. If you want to cut to the chase.

    BBC Documentary; The Great Global Warming Swindle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

    My pleasure. It is amazing YouTube is still allowing it to be shown--hopefully more will follow your lead.
    "In real life James Bond works for S.P.E.C.T.R.E."
    --frankstien

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to frankstien For This Post:

    Baby Steps (27th October 2019), Didgevillage (26th April 2019), onawah (26th April 2019)

  33. Link to Post #19
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,949
    Thanks
    26,742
    Thanked 46,731 times in 9,532 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    I will recommend it be included in the Avalon library, if it's not already.
    Quote Posted by frankstien (here)
    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    I took the time to watch the whole documentary, and this is far the most convincing and thorough explanation of what is really going on, and why, that I've seen thus far, Thanks for posting!

    Quote Posted by frankstien (here)
    Cue to 26 mins. If you want to cut to the chase.

    BBC Documentary; The Great Global Warming Swindle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

    My pleasure. It is amazing YouTube is still allowing it to be shown--hopefully more will follow your lead.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    frankstien (26th April 2019)

  35. Link to Post #20
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    315
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: Global Warming, Global Cooling or.. ??

    Quote Posted by GrayWolfBG (here)
    It's funny how some folk can make themselves look a bit dim by not thinking through ( or researching a bit?) their argument before committing it to the page?
    I wonder about that too.

    Quote Posted by GrayWolfBG (here)
    When you look at our global flooding record the past 5 years you can see the results!
    That will be cool. The Aral see will regain the original water level and droughts in Africa and Australia will come to an end.

    Quote Posted by GrayWolfBG (here)
    Well the Dimming the dirty,sulphur rich coal that hastened China into the world of industrialisation has had to be tamed by the Chinese as their urban populations suffered under their pall of pollution.

    The technologies to 'scrub' their emissions were developed in the west when it placed 'clean air' regulations in its stat books
    Fukushima and other nuke plants are said to curb "carbon emissions." Right. We have radioactive pollution instead. Which one would you prefer?

    Quote Posted by GrayWolfBG (here)
    We have just seen the Southern Hemisphere have a record warm summer so what do you think the Northern hemisphere will see this time?
    I bet you didn't see the photos of kangaroos in the snow, new winter scenery of Australia.

    Quote Posted by GrayWolfBG (here)
    Already Arctic Sea Ice is at record low extent for the time of year and looks likely to see out April as lowest.
    Arctic Sea Ice changes constantly. Hardly a trend setter for "global warming."

    Quote Posted by GrayWolfBG (here)
    We face another 25 years of accelerating warming across the planet
    We heard that before, like 25 years ago. Didn't happen.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts