Warm Glacier, Cold Glacier

 
According to climatologists manmade global warming is proven in the recent calving of a 12 x 24 square foot iceberg from the Pine Island glacier in western Antarctica. Those same scientists cannot account for the continued growth of the glacial ice on the eastern side of Antarctica that has been gaining about 200 billion metric tons per year. Melting on the west and growing on the east. What can it mean? Climatologists don't know. They have no idea why one side of the South Pole has a growing ice shelf while the other side is melting. According to them, it's not relevant and will become clear later.

They hope.

Climatologists speculate that it is an anomaly and eventually the losses on the western side of Antarctica will eventually balance out the increases on the eastern side. They have no proof of their suppositions but feel confident that proof will come in good time.

Nowhere in the articles and papers I've read do climatologists mention the active volcano percolating beneath the Pine Island Glacier nor do they mention anything about an increase in carbon monoxide emissions that volcanologists theorize presage an imminent earthquake and/or volcanic eruption. There is no mention of any outside forces, such as the huge planet (5-10x the size of Earth) bearing down on us or its gravitational forces or the effects of such a massive gravitational pull on the earth. There is no mention of the obvious tilt of the Earth, a fact that is talked about among the Inuit in Alaska and the Arctic or that the moon can be seen with the naked eye as having changed its orbit -- or Earth's orbit has changed, providing night time viewers with a different angle on the moon, a fact that is not lost on astronomers. Yet none of the astronomical data has been figured into the climate models or even mentioned in the data being circulated about the melting of the Antarctic ice shelf.

There is mention of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels -- an obvious result of manmade global warming. There is no mention of the fact that the CO2 levels were much higher during the 16th and 17th centuries after some serious volcanic explosions that, in addition to the Maunder Minimum (low sunspot numbers) that accompanied the mini Ice Age during that time. The data has been logged and climatologists have been tracking the global temperature for a whole century and yet none of that information has been presented in their public reports or their worst case scenario claims.

Nothing was mentioned about sunspot numbers or coronal mass ejections and solar activity, though it that data should be included because the weather and temperature of this planet are part of a much bigger -- and more conclusive -- picture.

Relying only on melting ice and glaciers calving, a natural occurrence since the world began, and CO2 levels provides a dark picture, and one that is missing considerable proof without the inclusion of the other components of a more complete picture.

It's like a child believing that because she stuck her finger in the fish bowl and one of her two fish died, it must be her fault because her finger was dirty or crawling with germs that attacked the fish. It's a natural tendency for people to blame themselves for everything without looking for other factors or considering other issues, like whether or not the bowl had been cleaned recently or the fish had not had enough time to get used to the temperature of the water or using chlorinated water or that the fish had a disease when they were purchased and had gone unnoticed. Or a dozen other factors. The child assumed it was all her fault for sticking her finger in the bowl to pet the fish. There could have been chemicals on the finger or the fish died of fright. There is no telling since the fish ended up being flushed down the toilet or buried in the back yard as the child cried before anyone thought to figure in other factors.

Humans are conditioned to believe everything is their fault. The industrial revolution in the 19th century was a big leap forward for civilization and great gouts of smoke gushed from factories and steam engines and all kinds of newfangled machines. Sure, it made life easier, but it also brought disease and pollution and buildings covered in soot and ash. No one had thought about the ramifications of advanced technology on the land or the people or the cities -- or the planet.

We discovered new chemicals and dumped them into the oceans and rivers and streams killing plants and animals. It was poison to the wildlife -- and to people. How could it not also poison the atmosphere, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat? Of course, it's all our fault.

We didn't stop to think of how a volcanic eruption poisons the atmosphere and cuts off the sunlight and poisons the water and the people. We didn't know that the CO2 and methane and CO emissions would sky rocket or that the poisons spewed out along with the lava and pyroclastic flows even as they burned and suffocated people. We knew they happened, especially after Pompeii and Herculaneum and the surrounding countryside that disappeared from view for centuries after the volcano because quiescent again and the towns and life and people were buried beneath millions of tons of ash and lava and time.

It didn't matter. The pollution and warmer temperatures weren't the cause of outside forces or nature, they were our fault. We were to blame.

Must be nice to be powerful enough to destroy a whole planet without even knowing it.

None of the global warming can be charged to the planet warming up after the mini Ice Age as the effects of volcanism, an increase in sunspot activity, or anything natural. How could sunspots and the tilt of the earth and the continuing volcanism have anything to do with what is obviously our fault since the industrial revolution?

By collecting a limited range of data and not factoring in other forces outside of manmade pollution it is no wonder the computer models don't match what is happening on the planet. The answer was to adjust the models and fix the math. That should give climatologists the results that would fix the computer models -- except that even by fudging the data nothing changed. The models changed, but they did not depict what the scientists hoped they would see.

None of the weather tinkering, like spewing heavy metals and chemicals into the atmosphere to make it rain where it as wanted or needed, could possible affect the planet or change the weather elsewhere. Increased gravitational forces pulling on the earth couldn't possibly disturb the various tectonic plates and cause earthquakes or stir up the sleeping volcanoes. The volcanism and CO2 and CO emission increases as a result of earthquakes and erupting or seething volcanoes spewing into the atmosphere have an effect, but it is minimal compared to what people have done in the pursuit of technology. We have to put a stop to all the global warming in spite of the fact seen in the actual temperatures that what has been predicted has not happened.

There are far more factors to be considered and figured in before deciding that the child's finger is the only reason for the fish dying.

I do not dispute that greed has done more to fuel pollution and damage to the atmosphere and the planet, but that is a bucket of water poured into the Pacific Ocean in comparison. There is also Fukushima to consider and nothing has been said and none of the data has been figured into the computer models to add to the dire picture.

Scientists need to look at the bigger picture and take data from far more sources than just CO2 and CO emissions and the warming/cooling of the polar regions. How about factoring in the obvious change in the Earth's tilt, the approaching planetary mass (brown dwarf, galaxy, failed star, massive Uranus sized asteroid, comet) hurtling toward us that can be seen every morning rising in the east before the sun hits the horizon. Factor in sunspot activity and weather control and volcanism and earthquakes and gaseous emissions. Factor in every bit of data instead of the narrow range of numbers currently used, like measuring the temperature.

And also consider that the amount of data currently collected from core ice samples is insignificant compared to the age and life cycle of this planet. We know very little and scientists assume a great deal, rather like extrapolating a history of the world by concocting a story based on a few pottery shards and ruins that have yet to be thoroughly examined.

We know nothing but science has yet to figure that out. Or maybe, like the little boy who saw the future and did not predict the end of the world by super nova until he learned what a super nova was, we will cease to exist because the boy learned about super novas a couple of days before the sun exploded (Twilight Zone episode).

Or consider that everything we think we know is based on lies told to keep people from panicking if they found out we are being -- and have always been -- controlled by outside forces and cabals and beings that treat us like lab rats in a maze.

Until more extensive data comes to light and the scientists and politicians and bankers and whoever else with a stake in this worldwide experiment come clean, I will consider the news of the end of the world if we don't change our ways a small piece of a vast and complex puzzle.

That is all. Disperse.