Cash only and bank failures possible?

Cash is king and only for the Eastern North Carolina Mom & Pop's Barbecue, no credit cards or checks

[chalupacollects]

Well, it is true that if we get hit with an EMP weapon (electro magnetic pulse) anything with a computer or a computer chip will get fried. Cars, electrical grids, water supplies, cash registers, cell phones, gas pumps etc.

It is estimated that if an EMP is detonated by ballistic missile 200 miles above the USA or yet by an even better delivery system, such as a balloon - (sound familiar?) that 90% of our population would be dead within a year.

The good news is that old cars and aircraft would still be able to run until they run out of gas and maybe coal powered trains which would be tough to find.

On that note have a nice day!

[packs]

As far as I know the only way to generate an EMP of that magnitude is to explode a nuclear weapon in high atmosphere above your target. If you're going to do something like that, you'd just drop the bomb on your target.

Doesn't seem like a practical thing to worry about.

[Exhibitman]

If you live in SoCal, it is more or less an article of faith that when the San Andreas Fault finally pops, we will spend up to 2 weeks or so at home holed up without electricity or water. We stock our pantry and emergency supplies accordingly. A calamity affecting the power grid, like a terrorist attack in CA or, apparently, breathing hard on the grid in TX, is the same idea, so same prep. There are some benefits to living in SoCal, though, that outweigh the risk of an earthquake, like excellent universities:

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by packs

As far as I know the only way to generate an EMP of that magnitude is to explode a nuclear weapon in high atmosphere above your target. If you're going to do something like that, you'd just drop the bomb on your target.

Doesn't seem like a practical thing to worry about.

Doesn't have to be a big nuke, its the enemies way of killing you without actually killing you...

[irv]

Originally Posted by CW

I don't really want to get into a debate on this, but the first part of that meme, ie. "NASA now admits..." does not correlate with what is currently on the NASA.gov website.

Statistics can also be twisted to fit a narrative, which is maybe what the person who made that meme did. I really don't know, because they didn't state their source, but the first statement in that meme appears to be BS, so how can you trust the rest of it?

Here is the direct link, which may be difficult to explain away:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

The meme in question

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask...lobal-warming/
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ier-is-growing

I'd say the meme is 100% spot on, but if you think otherwise, I don't blame you, as, just like the news about covid and vaccines, the news changed/flip flopped about 100 times since the first report.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/gl...rnd/index.html

Can you tell me what the ideal temp is supposed to be and at what point in time in the earth's history has the climate never changed?

[CW]

Dale, I am talking specifically about this statement:

NASA now admits polar ice has increased beyond its 1979 volume and there's been no significant warming in 18 years.

None of the links you posted give evidence to the above statement. Some of them refute it.

The first link talks about SNOW accumulation being a factor, but it still points to "thinning glaciers".

The 2nd link you provided you may not have actually read beyond the headline, as it actually gives more evidence to global warming:

On the surface, that sounds like great news. After all, if this glacial behemoth, which drains seven percent of Greenland, is slowing, certainly that must mean that global warming is also slowing, right?

Wrong. The findings have been interpreted that way by some, suggesting that the study results were evidence that global warming is slowing or stopping. However, the facts paint a different picture, as a quick review of the study’s key findings illustrates.

Your 3rd link refers to a single Greenland glacier, the same one mentioned in your 2nd link. We should be more concerned about polar ice in general, not just one glacier. even if it is a large one. The world has over 200,000 glaciers. The 3rd link also states this:

Jakobshavn has spent decades in retreat—that is, until scientists observed an unexpected advance between 2016 and 2017.

So let's completely ignore the fact that this glacier has spent "decades in retreat", and instead focus on a one to three year span in which the glacier has grown thicker. It also mentions that this short term growth is related to cool ocean water, not an absence of global warming:

“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.

Willis and colleagues think the glacier is reacting to a shift in a climate pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation, which has brought cold water northward along Greenland’s west coast.

Jakobshavn’s changes are temporary. When the NAO flips again, the glacier will most likely resume accelerating and thinning, as warm waters return to continue melting it from beneath.

Later in the article:

While Jakobshavn’s behavior may be confusing to some, there is no evidence that its growth is indicative of any slowdown in global warming. Global carbon dioxide concentrations aren’t dropping, global atmospheric and ocean temperatures aren’t dropping and global sea levels aren’t falling. In fact, all evidence points strongly in the opposite direction.

So the glacier is not growing because global warming is a myth, it is growing due to a shift in a climate pattern (ie. NAO) which simply brings colder water to the North along Greenland's west coast where that particular glacier exists.

It does not seem like you read these articles beyond the title, as the content within the articles actually lend more scientific evidence towards global warming. And again, none of the articles you posted lend any evidence that "NASA now admits polar ice has increased beyond its 1979 volume and there's been no significant warming in 18 years."

Can you tell me what the ideal temp is supposed to be and at what point in time in the earth's history has the climate never changed?

No, Dale, I cannot tell you what the ideal temp is supposed to be -- I admit I am not an expert. And just because the Earth's climate has changed drastically many times over the course of millennia, that does not mean that man made factors are not having an effect now or over the course of the last few hundred years. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive -- both can exist at the same time.

It is also possible that global warming does exist, AND there are people and governments out there that can profit massively due to this scientific fact. Again, both things are not mutually exclusive.

I'll keep believing the science, you keep reading and posting the Reddit memes created by some 23 year old sitting in his basement.