Polar Freezers and the Global Warming

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,751
Reactions
19,455
KD disclaimer: this is going to be one of those "bananas" threads. I intend to offer a hypothesis that we have two humongous freezers installed within North and South polar regions. In my opinion, they could have been installed by the previous society to free the Earth of the Great Biblical Flood waters. This thread requires the reader to know contents of the multiple threads published on this forum. I am not going to recite those threads, to include their substance. At the very best I will provide a link.

Global Warming
Global warming is a long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system, an aspect of climate change shown by temperature measurements and by multiple effects of the warming. The term commonly refers to the mainly human-caused observed warming since pre-industrial times and its projected continuation, though there were also much earlier periods of global warming. In the modern context the terms global warming and climate change are commonly used interchangeably, but climate change includes both global warming and its effects, such as changes to precipitation and impacts that differ by region. Many of the observed warming changes since the 1950s are unprecedented in the instrumental temperature record, and in historical and paleoclimate proxy records of climate change over thousands to millions of years.


KD: For the longest time I have thought that the entire Global Warming Saga was a made up problem. I think I might be on the verge of changing my opinion. This change of opinion could be a byproduct of the existence of this forum. Never ever before have I scrutinized information to the point I do now.
  • Basically I was wondering why the authorities were bothering with something like this "Global Warming". If it was for the money, they have plenty of various ways to collect. I entertained that they might know something we do not, at the same time they could not call it for what it really was.
The only fact we do have: the authorities appear to be freaked out that Arctic and Antarctic Ice would melt.

Biblical Flood
While we do have multiple sources of various Great Floods similar to the Genesis one, I will only mention the most common one. After all, I think those are one and the same.

Noah's Ark from Anton Koberger's German Bible
18010

Source
  • Seeing that the earth was corrupt and filled with violence, God instructed Noah to build an ark in which he, his sons, and their wives, together with male and female of all living creatures, would be saved from the waters. Noah entered the ark in his six hundredth year, and on the 17th day of the second month of that year "the fountains of the Great Deep burst apart and the floodgates of heaven broke open" and rain fell for forty days and forty nights until the highest mountains were covered 15 cubits, and all life perished except Noah and those with him in the ark.
  • After 150 days "God remembered Noah ... and the waters subsided" until the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. On the 27th day of the second month of Noah's six hundred and first year the earth was dry.
Waters and Timing
Essentially, if the Genesis Flood story has any merit to it, we are faced with three questions, answers to which could shed some light onto quite a few different research areas, including the one I'm presenting:
Where waters came from: According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the "waters above" the earth from the "waters below" the earth. Whether we do have the elusive Firmament or not, none of us knows for sure. We are being told that we have Space, and van Allen Belts.

As far as the internal Earth structure goes, the Kola Superdeep Borehole is only 7.6 miles deep. Yet, we are being told that we know what's going on at 3,958 miles deep (Inner Core). I do question that we are being told the truth about what's down there.
18009
Through the Genesis we get the following:
  • the fountains of the Great Deep burst apart and the floodgates of heaven broke open
As we can see, the waters came from below, and from above, if we were to honor the Genesis, and Co. The water kept on coming for 40 days, "until the highest mountains were covered 15 cubits". After 150 days "God remembered Noah ... and the waters subsided".

When the flood happened: Obviously the Deluge is being pushed to some super ancient times. We get quite a range of "scientific" opinions out there.
  • some say it happened in 2348 BCE
  • some say it happened 100,000 years ago
  • some say it did not happen at all
But even the most recent time provided, pushes the event some 4,367 years back. Meanwhile, we have multiple legends carrying the legend through time.
Great Flood Timing: 300-500 years ago
Questioning the Narrative is hard. Not so much "per se" but rather in the court of public opinion, if you will. We are so used to looking at certain things/events in a particular ingrained way. In this case we all "know", that if this Biblical Flood happened, it took place a very long time ago. And the reason we know that is because the Genesis is pushed so far back. This is a dogmatic, institutional knowledge, and as such is beyond contestation.

KD opinion: I think the Great Biblical Flood happened fairly recently, i.e. 300-500 years ago. I think so, because of the three undeniable facts which are being grossly misrepresented by the so-called historians.
  • Population Growth Chart
  • Map Transformations
  • Ruin Artists
Population Grows Chart
Population growth is one of the biggest giveaways here. The ridiculousness of the below chart is being explained each and every way one can imagine. Our gullibility is the limit for the "Narrative" writers.


Before we get into some numbers here, lets re-visit the official timeline of the "Homo" history. In this case it is irrelevant whether you are a creationist, or in the Darwin's corner. We do have the "Narrative", accompanied by a certain population growth time line.

18039
  • Homo: 2,500,000 to 2,000,000 years ago
  • Homo Erectus: 1,900,000 - 500,000 of years ago
  • Neanderthal and Denisovan: 800,000 - 300,000 years ago
  • Homo Sapiens: 300,000 - 130,000 years ago
Some of the World Population Numbers of the Homo Sapiens:

KD: Now, let us be real. We are considered to be Human Sapiens just like the very first ones 300-130 thousand years ago. That means that the Population Growth Charts have to start at least 130,000 years ago, and not 8k or 10k BC.
  • 130,000 to 1 AD: population grew from ZERO to 170 mln (or 400 mln)
  • 1 AD to 1700 AD: population grew from 170 mln (or 400 mln) to 600 mln
  • 1700 AD to 2019 AD: population grew from 600 mln to 7.7 bln
I am far from being proficient with computer graphics, but the below alteration I did to the above chart should do. In my opinion the Great Biblical Flood happened just before the growth spiked. Of course, that would mean that vast quantities of human (and other) beings perished in the cataclysm.

18043


Map Transformations
The map shenanigans have been one of the most prominent areas covered on this forum. I will just say that the "map thing" is being dismissed by the Narrative.


The changes we observe in our 1500-1800s cartography is being attributed to the lack of education, skill and knowledge exhibited by the most famous cartographers of the past. Some related threads to consider:
Ruin, aka Capriccio Artists
In painting, a capriccio means an architectural fantasy, placing together buildings, archaeological ruins and other architectural elements in fictional and often fantastical combinations, and may include figures). It falls under the more general term of landscape painting. The term is also used for other artworks with an element of fantasy.

18047


18055180491805118054
18052180481805018053

18057

Do we always know when we are being lied to? I think in this case we can question the Narrative. There is exactly ZERO evidence that any of the 17th-18th century artists were making stuff up. If anything there is plenty of compelling evidence that they were not.


KD: I am not going to name every single ruin artists out there. Those who want to know more will figure out where to look up those 17th-18th century individuals. There is one name which stands out, and the name is Giovanni Battista Piranesi. A few of the Piranesi related SH threads are below:
Mud Flood
I am not gonna go too deep into the Mud Flood topic. For those interested please feel free to visit the proper thread and section below:
The reason I'm bringing up the Mud Flood here is its existence, no matter what elevation we are talking about. I do not know if the world was entirely covered in water, but its arrival had to be somewhat gradual, for we are not observing tsunami-like destruction. We do see buildings buried in mud, with mud just accumulating around those structures.

18060

KD: 21st century excavation of Rome is probably one of the most prominent examples of the mud flow covering a city with no serious damages caused in the process. Could this happen due to the place becoming gradually submerged, entirely or partially? I think it could.
  • And in general, ask yourself why archaeologists have to excavate structures which are not that old...
Fun Facts
Circumstantial evidence: There are few ridiculous situations similar to the one the world famous Cologne Cathedral found itself in. The Narrative pushes its believability limits in my opinion: construction of Cologne Cathedral began in 1248 but was halted in 1473, unfinished. Work did not restart until the 1840s, and the edifice was completed to its original Medieval plan in 1880.

An 1856 photo of Cologne Cathedral, then unfinished,
with a 15th-century crane on south tower.

18061

Single photo: 1856 photo of Cologne Cathedral and 15th century crane

Where the Flood Waters went to?
Well, here is where I say that the Flood Waters were accumulated and frozen in our polar regions. The tech aspect of things we will cover a bit later. As far as melting all the world ice goes, our scientists say the following:
  • If we keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, global warming will eventually melt all the ice at the poles and on mountaintops, raising sea level by 216 feet.
  • There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth.
I do not believe that the entire Earth was covered with water. Primarily because the Flood Legends exist in memories of each and every corner of our planet (whether spherical, flat or whatever). This in turn means that survivors (besides "Noah and Co") were multiple and geographically spread out.

Pre-Ice Polar Regions
Science says: The icing of Antarctica began in the middle Eocene about 45.5 million years ago and escalated during the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago. The Western Antarctic ice sheet declined somewhat during the warm early Pliocene epoch, approximately 5 to 3 million years ago; during this time the Ross Sea opened up. But there was no significant decline in the land-based Eastern Antarctic ice sheet.

Ice has been building up in the Arctic for 2.7 million years. Until now, no one has been able to prove what mechanism brought about this accumulation of ice.

KD: So there we have it. I call BS on the above timing, for it could be a simple speculation, if it was not a deliberately misleading "scientism".

Polar Regions: recently
I am not even gonna mention that the Antarctica was officially discovered only in 1820. All this time our so-called scientists were successfully dodging a simple question of how come we have the Antarctica on the 15th (16th, etc.) century maps. And what is more important, we have Antarctica without any ice. To save some room I will tack on the Arctic region to it as well.

18062

The above maps are dated with 1595 and 1597 from left to right. Obviously on the left we have the Arctic region, and on the right the Antarctic one. I chose these two, for they appear to be the most famous ones. Yet there are tons of other maps pertaining to the polar regions free of ice. Most of those maps predate the above two. I am not going to search for those maps for the reader. You can visit the below related threads and a few ancient map links below.
KD: Our scientists are telling us that the ice in both Polar Regions is millions of years old. Yet, we have a gazillion of maps telling us otherwise. If someone wants to say, that our scientists are correct, please provide which one of the involved cartographers personally stated that he was making stuff up. In my personal opinion, we are being misled beyond any imaginable believe, and it is being done on purpose.

Old Technology
If the speed of the Industrial Revolution, volume of the 19th century patent filings, and some "other" technology attributed to the so-called "Ancient Austronauts" is not enough to pick your curiosity, you need to factor in all the remarkable architecture of the "Ancients". I can point you to some of the forum sections, but what you get out of it is entirely up to you:
What kind of technological advancement was needed for creating maps like this one?
And, of course, we have people like Nikola Tesla, who might have been used to re-introduce great volumes of the pre-existing technology into the "New" world.

Anyways, I think we have very little understanding, and a whole lot of denial of what those "ancient" people were capable of. I do entertain the possibility, that the "ancients" of 500 years ago (without Windows 10, and iPhones) were technologically superior to our current civilization.

Ice Wall and Freezers
While the term "the Antarctic Wall" is more or less attributed to the Flat Earth society, there is no denial of such a phenomenon. There is an Ice Wall there.

18064

Some parts of this wall are more weird than others.

18067


180651806618068

A Freezer?
I know that this hypothesis is out there, but I think we are dealing with a humongous artificial freezing system. And this system is being protected by the below Antarctic Treaty.

Below: The 455,000 square-foot, 116-foot tall building will be the largest refrigerated warehouse in North America and largest automated freezer in the world.

Obviously not this one here, but this is the direction I'm thinking in.
As of 2015, there are 53 states party to the treaty, 29 of which, including all 12 original signatories to the treaty, have consultative (voting) status. Consultative members include the seven nations that claim portions of Antarctica as national territory. The 46 non-claimant nations either do not recognize the claims of others, or have not stated their positions.

18063

If this happy flag family signing and resigning a treaty to protect a chunk of 2 mile deep ice is not suspicious, I do not know what is. North Korea, Russia and the United States on the same treaty is strange enough, but the contents of the treaty are even stranger. I am not going to do anyone's homework in reference to the research of the contents of this Treaty. In a nutshell it means that any given country can't do jack there.

Don't let those tourist cruises mislead you. You will pay an arm and a leg to see a square mile of a some cold place. And you will be given a chance to pet a penguin, or two.

Other than that, the "Treaty" prohibits any corporation, or military activity. Military equipment is to be used for protection of the "Treaty" only. No oil drilling, etc. Those select scientists need protection to drill the ice in some crazy cold weather, I guess. They do it since 1898. Does anyone know what they are doing there? What is a single useful accomplishment?

Back to Global Warming
18071

Source
We have this interesting inconsistency happening to our "Global Warming" process. In a way it suggests that "Warming" is more local than global.
18072

KD summary: My hypothesis on all of the above is something like this.
  • We have two freezers keeping the Flood waters accumulated at the polar regions.
  • The North Pole Freezer has failed, causing heavy melting to the Arctic Ice.
  • Unable to fix the Northern Freezer, TPTB freaked out and went into the "Global Warming" mode.
  • TPTB can not make the true issue public, hence the "Global Warming" term.
  • The South Pole Freezer was cranked to full capacity to compensate for the failed North one.
  • The Antarctic Treaty is protecting the freezer, as well as our sanity.
  • The Arctic region freezer is conveniently surrounded by some trustworthy countries. Hence no Treaty is required.
  • The Great Biblical Flood happened barely prior to the first emergence of the Ruin Paintings.
I might revisit this thread to polish it up a bit. Pretty sure I forgot to mention quite a few relevant SH forum threads. Feel free to add those if they pertain. So far, I simply wanted to through this out there, and see what the general opinion would be.

P.S. Greenland used to be green, right?

1592 Prioris Hemisphaerii
18073

Source
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,329
Something happened in the not-too-distant past. It's as good a supposition as any. I have a stupid question (probably more than one): Why are both the North AND South poles covered in ice? I can understand the North pole being cold and icy but shouldn't the South pole be hotter than the hubs of hell?
Based on your giant freezer hypothesis, do you think the magnetic hyperactivity of the Antarctic is what's powering the giant freezer? And is there a corresponding magnetism in the Arctic (or has there been in the past)?
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,751
Reactions
19,455
Based on your giant freezer hypothesis, do you think the magnetic hyperactivity of the Antarctic is what's powering the giant freezer? And is there a corresponding magnetism in the Arctic (or has there been in the past)?
I know nothing of the magnetism in reference to powering anything. Some say it’s possible. At least there are videos pertaining to the issue.

I did not think about the power source for the freezers, but if I were to, I would go with salt.
Based on what we can see with all the “ancient” light shows, powering something did not appear to be an issue for that society.
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
154
Reactions
551
In spite of the propaganda from the carbon dioxide causes global warming hoaxers the best correlation of planetary warmth is the number of sun spots seen on the sun: the more you have the warmer the planet is in general.
18156

We have been in a very high sun spot activity cycle for 110 years or so and this marker shows that it is correlated.
The above graph shows that in the late 1500's the sun spot activity collapsed and we entered the Wolf Ice age and this terrible charge in weather patterns, very cold weather continued for 430 years. This is the time of the great flood, mud floods, extinctions of the large peoples and animals, desertification of North Africa, burying of towns and cities in mud, electrical transmutation of the atmosphere, destructive comets abounded, and Tartary partially destroyed. The great flood happened in the late 1300's or in another section of the solar minima.

18157
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,751
Reactions
19,455
While the information is definitely interesting, I have hard time imagining someone out there collecting and maintaining data on the sun spots between 1000 AD and ~1750 AD.

Just out of curiosity, how was the top “blue” chart put together? Meaning where did the data come from?
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
154
Reactions
551
Here is a prediction of the activity of the 25 sun spot activity cycle and its very very low. It's reset low! The exact physical mechanism of how low activity causes these disasters is not known but the correlation is disturbing. I'm sure the Illlumined ones who worship the sun know of this important connection. When you look for disasters of all kinds the worse ones just happened to be at the minimums of sun spot numbers.
While the information is definitely interesting, I have hard time imagining someone out there collecting and maintaining data on the sun spots between 1000 AD and ~1750 AD.

Just out of curiosity, how was the top “blue” chart put together? Meaning where did the data come from?
Well astronomers using telescopes found them in the early 1600's.

18159

Galileo's Sunspot Drawings
In 1612 during the summer months, Galileo made a series of sunspot observations which were published in Istoria e Dimostrazioni Intorno Alle Macchie Solari e Loro Accidenti Rome (History and Demonstrations Concerning Sunspots and their Properties, published 1613). Because these observations were made at appoximately the same time of day, the motion of the spots across the Sun can easily be seen.
The blue graph is from a scientific paper I don't have access to but yes they had to interpolate sets of data to get a rough idea of the numbers. In the first graph presented the "medieval warm period" I hypothesize instead was the Garden of Eden: a warm climate full of life where the great buildings, dams, aqueducts, roads, cities, sculptures, power stations were completed.
 
Last edited:

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
154
Reactions
551
So far 2019 is a very low sun spot time and was lower than most of the predictions.
A MONTH WITHOUT SUNSPOTS: There are 28 days in February. This year, all 28 of them were spotless. The sun had no sunspots for the entire month of Feb. 2019. This is how the solar disk looked every day:


The last time a full calendar month passed without a sunspot was August 2008. At the time, the sun was in the deepest Solar Minimum of the Space Age. Now a new Solar Minimum is in progress and it is shaping up to be similarly deep. So far this year, the sun has been blank 73% of the time--the same as 2008.

Solar Minimum is a normal part of the solar cycle. Every ~11 years, sunspot counts drop toward zero. Dark cores that produce solar flares and CMEs vanish from the solar disk, leaving the sun blank for long stretches of time. These minima have been coming and going with regularity since the sunspot cycle was discovered in 1859.

However, not all Solar Minima are alike. The last one in 2008-2009 surprised observers with its depth and side-effects. Sunspot counts dropped to a 100-year low; the sun dimmed by 0.1%; Earth's upper atmosphere collapsed, allowing space junk to accumulate; the pressure of the solar wind flagged while cosmic rays (normally repelled by solar wind) surged to Space Age highs. All these things are happening again.

 

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
112
Reactions
534
god, those wall images are freaky. so sheer, so perpendicular. blatantly unnatural.

setting aside the strange theories about mid-20th Germany's special interest in the South Pole - any idea that it is a hidden paradise awaiting the elite for the next climatic extinction event - any mention of the terrestrial Poles merits another squawk about the Thunderbolt Project. I'm no expert, but from their excellent videos I have seen, there is reason to believe that Earth, and every planet in our solar system, is in an electrical relationship with the Sun and potentially with each other planet. North Pole and South Pole representing Anode and Cathode, projecting out/drawing in "bands" or "tentacles" of electromagnetic radiation to & from Sol (e.g., if I recall, Saturn & Jupiter's pole are each spinning in opposite directions).

By that token it should be extremely strange that our 2 poles, rather than being opposites, have been taught to be climatically the same. and then we also have to throw the ancient-maps accurate projections of antarctic landmass into the mix, from a time when we're taught it was covered in ice. so as tumultuous as this GW event is going to be, I don't think we will ever reach a "true" blue ocean event. however much ice melts in the north will probably just balance out by accumulating in the south.
 

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
1,091
Reactions
2,829
What nags at me is we are always being told by this expert or that, or a plethora of experts and media mixed that it's all laid out as they prescribe and YOU as in little me are not an expert so cannot question things.
Well bugger that for a game of soldiers. I am not being paid/forced to lie and feed people make believe bullshit.
Who knows there are 'poles' anyway?
If the magnetic north isn't the 'true north' then just how does one know they are stood at the true north pole?
If a magnetic compass always points north what does it point to when it itself is at the 'magnetic north pole'?
Why are there no magnetic compass's that point due magnetic south?
What if true north is actually ice free and verdant?

The sun.
We see a light traverse over our heads. That really is the sum total of our understanding of what it is. Everything else is theory.
Same goes for the moon. It's a light that appears and disappears both in sunlight and when the sun isn't around. So that's two lights doing regular patterns over our heads.
The Hindu's and probably other peoples talk of a third light up there. The black sun it's called. I've seen the first two but never knowingly clapped eyes on the last one.

The banana freezer theory.
Why not it isn't any more daft as a theory than any of the others.

Warble gloaming;
is and always has been an obvious scam from the False Evidence Appearing Real factory it's astonishing how all pervasive it has become. Mind people who stand next to massive pairs of diesel engines in the trains at the platform will put out their cigarettes on entering the station because 'secondhand smoke kills' so perhaps not that astonishing.
Perhaps the real 'solar minimum' is a direct result of the creative energy of people being drained by such lunacy.

The Ant Arctic (a very odd sort of label for a 'geographical' region) Treaty proves beyond any doubt that the 'known world' is under the world order that is striving to replace the previous. The money cult is my term for it and it hasn't been around for long.

So here ya go.
The sun and moon are concentrated reflections of peoples energy levels.
The person who invented the first compass decided south was the pole that the needle pointed to but his mate said "No let's have a laugh and say it points North instead".
The known world is but a fraction of what is really out there.
We build our own versions of the known world inside our heads based on the crap we get told is real, in spite of what our senses tell us.
This world is a water world where it exists in all its states all of the time.
Above my head is water and under my feet is water and inside my body is water. The universe is water if you will.

And finally. I have just remembered I have a full 14 volume set of the National Encyclopedia of 1899 to hand, courtesy of long dead family members and in it there are various maps where the 'poles' are just white circles and Greenland is in fact green all around its coast and it is just the inner land which is coloured white which we are trained to see as ice/snow just as we are trained to see blue as water (why do you think the sky is blue). I'll scan it and post it on here as it is festooned with names of places so at least in the late 1800's Greenland was totally known and settled by the looks of it.
 
Last edited:

Andromeda

Well-known member
Messages
162
Reactions
335
What nags at me is we are always being told by this expert or that, or a plethora of experts and media mixed that it's all laid out as they prescribe and YOU as in little me are not an expert so cannot question things.
Well bugger that for a game of soldiers. I am not being paid/forced to lie and feed people make believe bullshit.
Who knows there are 'poles' anyway?
If the magnetic north isn't the 'true north' then just how does one know they are stood at the true north pole?
If a magnetic compass always points north what does it point to when it itself is at the 'magnetic north pole'?
Why are there no magnetic compass's that point due magnetic south?
What if true north is actually ice free and verdant?

The sun.
We see a light traverse over our heads. That really is the sum total of our understanding of what it is. Everything else is theory.
Same goes for the moon. It's a light that appears and disappears both in sunlight and when the sun isn't around. So that's two lights doing regular patterns over our heads.
The Hindu's and probably other peoples talk of a third light up there. The black sun it's called. I've seen the first two but never knowingly clapped eyes on the last one.

The banana freezer theory.
Why not it isn't any more daft as a theory than any of the others.

Warble gloaming;
is and always has been an obvious scam from the False Evidence Appearing Real factory it's astonishing how all pervasive it has become. Mind people who stand next to massive pairs of diesel engines in the trains at the platform will put out their cigarettes on entering the station because 'secondhand smoke kills' so perhaps not that astonishing.
Perhaps the real 'solar minimum' is a direct result of the creative energy of people being drained by such lunacy.

The Ant Arctic (a very odd sort of label for a 'geographical' region) Treaty proves beyond any doubt that the 'known world' is under the world order that is striving to replace the previous. The money cult is my term for it and it hasn't been around for long.

So here ya go.
The sun and moon are concentrated reflections of peoples energy levels.
The person who invented the first compass decided south was the pole that the needle pointed to but his mate said "No let's have a laugh and say it points North instead".
The known world is but a fraction of what is really out there.
We build our own versions of the known world inside our heads based on the crap we get told is real, in spite of what our senses tell us.
This world is a water world where it exists in all its states all of the time.
Above my head is water and under my feet is water and inside my body is water. The universe is water if you will.

And finally. I have just remembered I have a full 14 volume set of the National Encyclopedia of 1899 to hand, courtesy of long dead family members and in it there are various maps where the 'poles' are just white circles and Greenland is in fact green all around its coast and it is just the inner land which is coloured white which we are trained to see as ice/snow just as we are trained to see blue as water (why do you think the sky is blue). I'll scan it and post it on here as it is festooned with names of places so at least in the late 1800's Greenland was totally known and settled by the looks of it.
I always thought north was the sun. North is where the sun is. And south is in the opposite direction. So, true north is always moving I think.
 

0harris0

Well-known member
Messages
176
Reactions
369
graphics like this always make me want to facepalm... so much wrong in just the title on it's own! let alone comparing 4 years of current data, against 30 years worth of what's bound to be less accurate data from (almost) 70-40 years ago?!

30 years worth of data is f**k all in the grand scheme of things, and I don't think the graphic would be so dramatic if we used data from 1980-2014 as the baseline comparison.. not to mention we were nuking our own atmosphere pretty consistently from 1950-1981... pretty sure that could affect the global temperature!

anyways, onto floods!!! I don't believe there was ever an entire worldwide flood event, more that certain areas have been affected different amounts at different times, with different causes. The stories are so muddled up and re-written that it's hard to tell for certain what was really happening!

a potential tsunami hits the UK in 1607... that fit your timeline at all KD?! ;)
apologies for the wiki but it's all there!
Bristol Channel floods, 1607 - Wikipedia
[[[ there's also this potentially useful list: List of floods in Europe - Wikipedia ]]]

regarding the poles, I always had some visualisation of a pole shift, or an entire planetary axis shift, but not something akin to a full 180 spin, but maybe something like a 45-90 degree rotation, where once green lands become desert, areas that used to be ice free are now pushed into the arctic regions, maybe areas of the north pacific and south atlantic oceans used to be the icey zones and the land masses were all temperate?! this would certainly account for a flood like event, especially if the cause for the shift was a large impact of some sort!!
 
Last edited:

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
559
Reactions
1,854
Good idea @KorbenDallas perhaps you are onto something.

All we know for sure is all of the official narratives, current maps, climate change etc etc are lies, diversion, deception.

If we follow a train of thought some of us have discussed re our current civilisation finding tech and not being able to fully understand, maintain or repair, then KD could be on to something here.

All I know is at school in the UK, 1975 TO 1988 I was educated to believe

North Pole = Arctica (or Arctic circle)... Ice, snow and was shown as such on maps & globes. You could hypathetically walk to the pole. Now it is a sea with no actual pole...

Greenland is covered in snow and ice (appears it was not always)

South Pole = Antarctica Ice, snow and was shown as such on maps & globes (appears it was not always)

The narrative is constantly changing it seems, but whatever the official narrative you can be sure that it is fake.
 

space966

Member
Messages
26
Reactions
63
One thing I remember from Soviet Union times (I lived in Soviet Union), that in 1960-ies, 70-ies, there was heavy promotion of Icebreakers. And I clearly remember: icebreakers were needed to make sea-way for ordinary ships on northern Russia sea shore. More on history of icebreakers you can read here: Icebreakers
 

PrimalRed

Well-known member
Messages
78
Reactions
446
18259
18260
18261
18262


18263
18264
18265


18266

Different generation, different propaganda. Nothing really changes- just the content of the brainwashing.

The concept of the giant freezers are an interesting idea in and of themselves though.

But as far as carbon dioxide and methane causing global warming, it's a total myth based on bad science. CO2 actually has a higher emissivity than the surrounding atmospheric gasses. Emitted energy = absorbed energy. 1 = absorbtivity + reflectivity. What this means is that a highly reflective surface doesn't absorb much, but in turn, has a very low emissivity. Think about when you leave your car windows rolled up on a hot day- the black dashboard is hot, but cools off after a bit when you roll the windows down. The highly reflective seat belt buckle however is HOT and will burn you for many minutes after you roll the windows down. It reflects a lot of radiative energy but in turn does not emit much, causing it to retain the energy.

The atmosphere can be compared thusly- Nitrogen and Oxygen are the "seat belt buckle" with lower emissivity than the CO2 which is like the black dashboard. They hold onto heat much more than CO2, in turn the CO2 collides with the hotter gasses, absorbs their energy, and emits the energy in the form of radiation, effectively cooling the atmosphere. Here's a chart of CO2's cooling effect:

18267

The 'radiative green house effect' is a confabulation of this emittive property of CO2: claiming that the infrared bounces around, effectively acting like a greenhouse. This is completely false. The second law of thermodynamics makes this crystal clear: heat transfer only occurs from the hotter body to the colder one. In other words, the surface of the Earth, which is the source of the infrared energy as it has absorbed radiation from the Sun, can never, ever be heated by the cooler atmosphere above it. This is actually incredibly simple if you think about it for a second. If you have an ice cube in front of you, is it "heating" you up? of course not. Your body heat radiates and heats the ice cube up, not the other way around. What actually happens is the infrared from the surface gets absorbed by CO2 and other gasses, and in 73 fempto seconds gets radiated off into space. Space is much colder than the atmospheric gasses, and the heat transfer is always away from the earths surface, never back to it.

This property of radiative emission is very well known. It's similar for light: if a light source emits rays of light and those rays get reflected back to the source, it can never make the source light brighter. This would violate the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. If an ice cube could heat me up, I would be even hotter than before, and heat the ice cube up even faster, which would then heat me up even more etc. etc., effectively creating infinite energy. It just doesn't work that way.

The particle physics of heat transfer through radiative emission always necessitates that a higher energy photon is needed to bump the electron orbit of the recipient matter into a higher state. No amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can ever possibly heat the surface- the energy emitted is in a lower energy state (due to the lower temperature), the photons effectively do nothing or act as standing waves, and the energy is instead transferred to upper atmosphere because its colder there and the atoms actually can be bumped into a higher state. This happens all the way into space.

Heat transfer only occurs from the hotter body to a colder one. The earth's surface can never be heated by CO2 or "greenhouse gasses".
 
Last edited:

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
514
Reactions
1,306
Well first thought is what a wild theory however that is pretty much what is going on now with HAARP and geoengineering, plus fake suns and what is the sun anyway. I think speculations about a electromagnetic past are spot on and most people are in denial it’s (weather manipulation and more) are going on now.
As for floods and cataclysms this is going on now too- it is totally possible by our tech today and people are in, once again, total denial (fires, DEWs, man made earthquakes and volcanos). Hiding current history from themselves you could say. They also tell us through the Deagle Report what the poputions in each area are they are aiming for, not to mention billionaires/Georgia Guidestones telling us the same thing. People ignore this, too. It seems all of this happened before.
 

Andromeda

Well-known member
Messages
162
Reactions
335
Well first thought is what a wild theory however that is pretty much what is going on now with HAARP and geoengineering, plus fake suns and what is the sun anyway. I think speculations about a electromagnetic past are spot on and most people are in denial it’s (weather manipulation and more) are going on now.
As for floods and cataclysms this is going on now too- it is totally possible by our tech today and people are in, once again, total denial (fires, DEWs, man made earthquakes and volcanos). Hiding current history from themselves you could say. They also tell us through the Deagle Report what the poputions in each area are they are aiming for, not to mention billionaires/Georgia Guidestones telling us the same thing. People ignore this, too. It seems all of this happened before.
To be honest I think the fake sun-theories is a way to make people more confused than what they already are and to make them dismiss the sun in their daily lives... Not good, in my opinion!
 
Top