HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

upside222 · Oct 1, 2017

DennisTate said: ↑

Wow! Awesome answer on this topic upside222....... I am curious what you personally think of the
Tony Lovell theories?

For the record, they sound very logical to me.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/its-the-ecology-stupid.512471/

https://permaculturenews.org/2012/1...ack-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth-tedx-video/

TONY LOVELL ON SOIL CARBON: PUTTING CARBON BACK WHERE IT BELONGS – IN THE EARTH (TEDX VIDEO)
Click to expand...

When I learned that we now have about 13% more green area on the earth than in 1980 (based on satellite photo's) it was immediately apparent something has been going on all over the earth. Couple this with the fact that we have more trees in North America today than we had 70 years ago and the CO2 removal capability of the land has gone up a *lot* in just the past thirty or forty years.

I didn't watch the whole video but the first part of it is right on point. We don't have to return to pioneer life. We don't have to make paupers of ourselves trying to implement costly alternative energy proposals. There are natural ways to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.

This is why it is *SO* important to actually put the increasing mean temperature the climate models predict into a usable form. The models don't tell us if the mean is going up because of more maximum temperature days, if it is going up because of more moderate temperature days, or if it is going up because of warmer nights and winters.

When you look at the number of cooling-days (an indirect measure of how hot it is) around the earth it is surprising that they are going down in such widespread locations as Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Ecuador, and central Africa - meaning a moderation in the number of extremely hot days. If it is coming from an increase in more moderate temp days, i.e. an expansion of the growing season, then that holds forth hope for even *more* green area on the earth which will result in even more natural CO2 capture as well as more food for starving people. Could this be why the Sahara Desert is shrinking?

Climate models themselves simply aren't sufficient to make good judgments on what needs to be done in the future. They are simply not holistic enough to consider the entire biosphere!

DennisTate · Oct 3, 2017

upside222 said: ↑

When I learned that we now have about 13% more green area on the earth than in 1980 (based on satellite photo's) it was immediately apparent something has been going on all over the earth. Couple this with the fact that we have more trees in North America today than we had 70 years ago and the CO2 removal capability of the land has gone up a *lot* in just the past thirty or forty years.

I didn't watch the whole video but the first part of it is right on point. We don't have to return to pioneer life. We don't have to make paupers of ourselves trying to implement costly alternative energy proposals. There are natural ways to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.

This is why it is *SO* important to actually put the increasing mean temperature the climate models predict into a usable form. The models don't tell us if the mean is going up because of more maximum temperature days, if it is going up because of more moderate temperature days, or if it is going up because of warmer nights and winters.

When you look at the number of cooling-days (an indirect measure of how hot it is) around the earth it is surprising that they are going down in such widespread locations as Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Ecuador, and central Africa - meaning a moderation in the number of extremely hot days. If it is coming from an increase in more moderate temp days, i.e. an expansion of the growing season, then that holds forth hope for even *more* green area on the earth which will result in even more natural CO2 capture as well as more food for starving people. Could this be why the Sahara Desert is shrinking?

Climate models themselves simply aren't sufficient to make good judgments on what needs to be done in the future. They are simply not holistic enough to consider the entire biosphere!
Click to expand...

Wow!

This is an astonishingly good answer to my question!

I think that you will both enjoy...... and be encouraged by the alternative ideas on stabilization of the climate put forward by New Mexico biologist and coach Carl Cantrell. I quoted him in my 2008 campaign for municipal council here in Canada.

www.BankingSystemsFlaws.blogspot.ca/

Carl Cantrell:

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Oct 3, 2017

goober said: ↑

Did you miss the part where it's been 700 million years since this last happened?
Click to expand...

Dr. James Hansen thinks this was about 35 million years ago........ but...... I guess he was only off by 665 milllion...... if you are closer to the truth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-beyond-the-co2/

If today’s CO2 levels would lead to several meters of sea-level rise—putting many coastal areas, housing hundreds of millions of people, completely underwater—then letting CO2 rise to 560 ppm could lead to a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Even a rise to 450 ppm could be catastrophic, according to Hansen’s team’s analysis. Before about 35 million years ago, the planet was completely ice free, so warm-water alligators and lush redwood forests thrived above the Arctic Circle. The transition to large-scale glaciation in Antarctica began, the researchers estimate, when CO2dropped to 425 ppm, plus or minus 75 ppm. Most of the ice should therefore disappear again if we reach that point—and if all of Antarctica’s and Greenland’s glaciers were to melt, sea level would rise many tens of meters. The only way to keep CO2 concentrations as low as that, Schneider says, is to have the entire world adopt California’s strictest-in-the-nation proposals for limiting carbon emissions—something that is hard to imagine even the other U.S. states agreeing to, let alone developing nations such as India and China.
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Aug 10, 2018

This can get serious........................
it can be argued that it already is.........

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6332

NEWS | APRIL 8, 2016
NASA Study Solves Two Mysteries About Wobbling Earth

A Sharp Turn to the East

Around the year 2000, Earth's spin axis took an abrupt turn toward the east and is now drifting almost twice as fast as before, at a rate of almost 7 inches (17 centimeters) a year. "It's no longer moving toward Hudson Bay, but instead toward the British Isles," said Adhikari. "That's a massive swing." Adhikari and Ivins set out to explain this unexpected change.

Scientists have suggested that the loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctica's rapidly melting ice sheet could be causing the eastward shift of the spin axis. The JPL scientists assessed this idea using observations from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, which provide a monthly record of changes in mass around Earth. Those changes are largely caused by movements of water through everyday processes such as accumulating snowpack and groundwater depletion. They calculated how much mass was involved in water cycling between Earth's land areas and its oceans from 2003 to 2015, and the extent to which the mass losses and gains pulled and pushed on the spin axis.

Adhikari and Ivins' calculations showed that the changes in Greenland alone do not generate the gigantic amount of energy needed to pull the spin axis as far as it has shifted. In the Southern Hemisphere, ice mass loss from West Antarctica is pulling, and ice mass gain in East Antarctica is pushing, Earth's spin axis in the same direction that Greenland is pulling it from the north, but the combined effect is still not enough to explain the speedup and new direction. Something east of Greenland has to be exerting an additional pull.

The researchers found the answer in Eurasia. "The bulk of the answer is a deficit of water in Eurasia: the Indian subcontinent and the Caspian Sea area," Adhikari said.

The finding was a surprise. This region has lost water mass due to depletion of aquifers and drought, but the loss is nowhere near as great as the change in the ice sheets.
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Aug 10, 2018

wyly said: ↑

I dont know if this a joke or not but were this true there would be thousands of mass extinctions and there just any evidence for this...
Click to expand...

Good point.......
scientists talk about five major mass extinctions..............
but they do refer to many smaller extinctions as well.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/
Mass Extinctions
More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. Learn what may cause animal die-offs

More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye.

Though these mass extinctions are deadly events, they open up the planet for new life-forms to emerge. Dinosaurs appeared after one of the biggest mass extinction events on Earth, the Permian-Triassic extinction about 250 million years ago. The most studied mass extinction, between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods about 65 million years ago, killed off the dinosaurs and made room for mammals to rapidly diversify and evolve
Click to expand...

HereWeGoAgain · Aug 12, 2018

DennisTate said: ↑

Dr. Albert Einstein took The HAB Theory very seriously.

In my opinion the addition of H2O to the central region of Antarctica is the reason why New Orleans is not already covered by the Gulf of New Mexico!

http://www.habtheory.com/1/100.php
Click to expand...

HAB Theory is a fictional book that was written in 1976.

Einstein did write a foreword to a book about polar displacement, which he disputed.

Hapgood conceded Einstein's point that the weight of the polar ice is insufficient to cause polar shift. Instead, Hapgood argued that causative forces must be located below the surface.[14] Hapgood encouraged Canadian librarian Rand Flem-Ath to pursue scientific evidence backing Hapgood's claims. Flem-Ath published the results of this work in 1995 in When the Sky Fell co-written with his wife Rose.[15
Click to expand...

And there is no evidence that rapid crustal displacements have ever occurred.

While there are reputable studies showing that true polar wander has occurred at various times in the past, the rates are much smaller (1° per million years or slower) than predicted by the pole shift hypothesis (up to 1° per thousand years).[2][3][24] Analysis of the evidence does not lend credence to Hapgood's hypothesized rapid displacement of layers of the Earth.[25] Data indicates that the geographical poles have not deviated by more than about 5° over the last 130 million years, contradicting the hypothesis of a cataclysmic polar wander event.[26] More rapid past possible occurrences of true polar wander have been measured: from 790 to 810 million years ago, true polar wander of approximately 55° may have occurred twice.[4]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis

DennisTate · Apr 13, 2019

HereWeGoAgain said: ↑

HAB Theory is a fictional book that was written in 1976.

Einstein did write a foreword to a book about polar displacement, which he disputed.

And there is no evidence that rapid crustal displacements have ever occurred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis
Click to expand...

But.... in an average year is it true that somewhere around 293 cubic miles of ice is added to the central region of Antarctica?

If so..... the implications are huge!

It would mean that this is why the cracking and sliding of ice off the land based Greenland Ice Pack and the world's glaciers have not SO FAR led to significant rise in ocean levels...... .but can that continue for much longer?????

How much longer will central Antarctica save our coastal communities?

tecoyah · Apr 13, 2019

DennisTate said: ↑

But.... in an average year is it true that somewhere around 293 cubic miles of ice is added to the central region of Antarctica?

If so..... the implications are huge!

It would mean that this is why the cracking and sliding of ice off the land based Greenland Ice Pack and the world's glaciers have not SO FAR led to significant rise in ocean levels...... .but can that continue for much longer?????

How much longer will central Antarctica save our coastal communities?

Click to expand...

I suggest you do a bit more research.
"Antarctica experienced a sixfold increase in yearly ice mass loss between 1979 and 2017, according to a study published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Glaciologists from the University of California, Irvine, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Netherlands' Utrecht University additionally found that the accelerated melting caused global sea levels to rise more than half an inch during that time."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190114161150.htm

And coastal communities already feel a pinch.....in a decade it may be a punch.

DennisTate · Apr 13, 2019

tecoyah said: ↑

I suggest you do a bit more research.
"Antarctica experienced a sixfold increase in yearly ice mass loss between 1979 and 2017, according to a study published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Glaciologists from the University of California, Irvine, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Netherlands' Utrecht University additionally found that the accelerated melting caused global sea levels to rise more than half an inch during that time."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190114161150.htm

And coastal communities already feel a pinch.....in a decade it may be a punch.
Click to expand...

Thank you immensely for this link......
but that ice loss from Antarctica is generally limited to certain areas and does not disprove the statistics related to a general increase in ice in the central region of Antarctica:

"He added that the sectors losing the most ice mass are adjacent to warm ocean water."
Click to expand...

Growth of ice in central Antarctica and relative stability of ocean levels?

"At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie!" (Gershom Gale, Expanded Discussion on HAB Theory).
Click to expand...

"Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess
of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19
quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the
theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is
remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic
miles of ice each year--almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen
solidly annually and added to it.(Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of
the Gods, page 480).
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

Have major magnetic polar shifts really occurred?

Yes... and growth of polar ice could be a primary reason.

Not in tens of thousands of years.

Yes... perhaps 171 times in the last five million years.

Yes... but the idea of this happening around 2030 is silly.

upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

HereWeGoAgain Banned

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

Have major magnetic polar shifts really occurred?

Yes... and growth of polar ice could be a primary reason.

Not in tens of thousands of years.

Yes... perhaps 171 times in the last five million years.

Yes... but the idea of this happening around 2030 is silly.

upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

HereWeGoAgain Banned

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches