Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Shifts the Earth's Poles
ananyo writes "Global warming is changing the location of Earth's geographic poles, according to a study published this week. Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, report that increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet — and to a lesser degree, ice loss in other parts of the globe — helped to shift the North Pole several centimeters east each year since 2005. From 1982 to 2005, the pole drifted southeast towards northern Labrador, Canada, at a rate of about 2 milliarcseconds — or roughly 6 centimetres — per year. But in 2005, the pole changed course and began galloping east towards Greenland at a rate of more than 7 milliarcseconds per year (abstract). The results suggest that tracking polar shifts can serve as a check on current estimates of ice loss. Scientists can locate the north and south poles to within 0.03 milliarcseconds by using Global Positioning System measurements to determine the angle of Earth's spin. When mass is lost in one part of a spinning sphere, its spin axis will tilt directly towards the position of the loss — exactly as the team observed for Greenland."
Part of this shift could be caused by filling the reservoir behind the Three Gorges Dam, since that is on the opposite side of the world from Greenland. But that would only explain part of it, since the reservoir holds about 40km^3 and Greenland is losing about 240km^3 per year.
What are the implications?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
I was actually going to post something incredibly close to this. The causal link just isn't there, as far as I can tell. It could very well be that the glaciers melt/freeze due to slight shifts in the poles' positions and variations in the Sun's output.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Is this a conservation of angular momentum thing? Because I feel like my high school physics teacher would try to explain this by spinning someone around in a chair with a melting ice cube on their head.
Why did it happen? Global Warming!
Just curious - since the continental drift we acknowledge is about a cm per year, and we're all floating anyway, could this also be seen as a drift of the whole surface? I.e.: Could it be that the poles are actually stationary and the surface as a whole (as opposed to continents drifting relative to each other) moves?
When you're at the North Pole, which way is East?
I traded email with my close personal friend at the University of Texas, Austin, Dr. Dyslexic.
He is aware of these finding and believes it is clear evidence of the hand of Dog at work.
No brain, no pain.
Just like the age of something can be measured by multiple decay products, layer depth, and many other measures of archeological assessment, and when they are in agreement, you know your results are robust, this is another way to measure the loss of ice which, if it agrees with GRACE, land measurements and predictions from models, will indicate that the model results are robust.
It's even in the FS:
"The results suggest that tracking polar shifts can serve as a check on current estimates of ice loss."
gee it couldn't possibly be the major earthquakes that have altered the earth's axis. it couldn't possibly be internal earth forces. it couldn't possibly have to do with the sun. it couldn't possibly be a part of the natural cycle of the earth's wobble. it certainly couldn't be any sort of other external force acting on the planet.
nope, it's gotta be global warming. there's no way that the earth's wobble combined with solar influence could be leading to altered climate. nope, it's gotta be the carbon dioxide you're exhaling, so you clearly need to be taxed for it. that'll fix it for sure!
There was this guy called Adolph that shifted the Poles too
I wonder how this affects high-accuracy geodetic GPS measurements. The GPS coordinate system is defined by the Earth's axis.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
It got redistributed, that is all.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is going to cause earthquakes and locusts, people!!!!!! The end is nigh!!!!! Pray to Mother Earth for forgiveness!!!!!!
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
I agree. Global warming may or may not be caused by humans. Perhaps in part. Regardless, we should focus on cutting pollution even if global warming is not man-made.
i first read about this a decade ago and it has been happening for hundreds of years. scientists are studying ships' logs from the 1700's and earlier and this process started 300 years ago.
It could very well be that the glaciers melt/freeze due to slight shifts in the poles' positions and variations in the Sun's output.
Yeah it could be. I suppose since we have no way of measuring the sun's luminous output with any precision at all we're all just guessing here.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Will that help? What if it makes things worse?
Now you don't have to worry about global worming, because as the world warms you will move closer to the pole.
There are plenty of things we can do. There's very little we *want* to do.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Continental drift also shifts Earth's geographic poles. Did they bother to compute the share of pole movement due to continental drift vs. movement/melting of the ice sheet? I doubt it.
And, in still other news, amazingly, angular momentum is conserved.
Funny, I mentioned the same thing, with the same end result and whether it is global warming, or my reasoning is that there were other types of gravitational pulls from within further in the galaxy that sort of gave us a 3rd axis, that would eventually change the other 2 pulls of the earth (spinning and orbiting). The galaxies has orbiting solar systems too, so technically these gravitational fields affect the planets (earth) as well, not just our sun....
In the end the result is the same, I explained in my previous post here on /. maybe 10 years ago, that what is happening is the poles shift, melting the ice and shifting the poles even more as the center of the equatorial line is becoming thicker with water (like an oval instead of a circle) thereby contributing even more to the change of axis forcing to have the new poles where the lines used to be more like a + sign, it is more like an X, enough to refreeze the new poles with ice as now you have more outreaching water and solidify the new earth axis in place.
Having said this, I would highly theorize that such events were the cause of the previous ice ages, as of course we can never really go back in time to see with our own eyes and investigate in person the causes, we can only theorize with core samples and deduce what we think happened. In the end, we never really know do we...
More like, there are plenty of things we can force people to do, but in free liberal countries, we seem to be encountering resistance to our solutions.
It may have been reasonable to believe that if you had no information whatsoever about e.g temperature and rainfall or solar output.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
What if it makes everyone live forever? What if it makes money grow on trees? What if it makes us travel back in time to the age of the dinosaurs?
How will it make it worse.
As in Fallen Angels, where anthropogenic global warming was the only thing preventing the onset of a new global Ice Age.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
No. Global warming is caused by people burning hydrocarbons. A couple centimeter change in the location of the poles doesn't open up the Northwest Passage. Releasing a shitload of CO2 does.
I'm afraid your sarcasm is going to go straight over the heads of slashdot's resident climate denialists.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Other than leave, which we have to do in a few million years, though I doult we will, and the Human race is doomed either way.
If the rate of pole movement increases then logically the center spin displacement of the mantel will change proportionally as well. Obviously even a small change in the positioning of the spinning mass will change stress points along geographic faults. Therefore rapid pole movement due to the loss of ice mass might very well increase the frequency and severity of earth quakes.
Most people are not aware of the fact that the earth is not a sphere and that much of the reason why it is not is because of polar spin. Moving the pole will move the much more than just the center of rotation.
Shake and bake due to climate change.
I was going to call stupidity on this, but then I realized they meant the axial poles. The magnetic poles have been shifting (they travel a lot, and sometimes reverse; there's been dramatic movement in the recent decade), and this can alter magma flows and screw with global weather patterns. Axial poles shift due to mass movement, which may occur from magnetic poles moving hot metal around, but also other reasons as cited.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
What closed it in the first place? It was open 500 years ago...
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I think some of it ended up on my gut. I might be willing to send it back to Greenland if it doesn't take too much effort.
Please could you explain me in which way are shifting the Earth's poles? All my life I have been thinking that the True North and True South Pole are in a fixed place on Earth. Thank you.
I'm afraid your sarcasm is going to go straight over the heads of slashdot's resident climate denialists.
I guess it's impossible to not run afoul of Poe's law because the level of genuine lunacy is so high.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
More like, there are plenty of things we can force people to do, but in free liberal countries, we seem to be encountering resistance to our solutions.
Strange. It always seems to be the conservative type who scream "we're helpless!" Or "If we do anything, it will destroy jobs!"
The fact that bad ideas dominate the set of proposed solutions does not make the problem invalid.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Stupid lack of sarcasm font. Of coursesolar output has an effect.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Awesome in how much of an epic fail this "scientific" research.
Regardless of global warming, I don't need a geology degree to know the geographic poles shift constantly, and if you measured their location over millions of years, you could realize that there is so much involved in where they are located, like continental drift or earthquakes or ice ages, to realize this is a completely meaningless study.
But of course retarded greenists are just going to add this to their list of "proof" about how the planet is in a state of disaster because someone linked something meaningless to global warming and other people will over sensationalize what a pole shift will mean to the planet (you know, like the BBC).
I don't deny global warming, I just want to be realistic about it and find ways of dealing with its existence rather than looking for blame or wasting money and time trying to prove it. I also don't believe this is the end of the planet just one of the many changes this planet has gone through and survived.
Global warming is a geo-political issue, period. Its not a global catastrophe to nature.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Okay, for the past five years or so I've experience some of the most frigid winters. We had an extremely cold winter. Followed by a winter with record snow (4 ft in two days). Followed by a year with a mild winter but a huge snow in fall and a late frost in April. Then this past winter we've had snow flurries on about 1/2 the days. And now, in the middle of may we had a frost wipe out my second planting of sweet potatoes and peppers.
This is well past the Farmer's Almanac.
So seriously, F-GW, F-AlGore, F-Idiots who shout doom and gloom. I'm going to light my fire pit, burn some carbon filled wood. And pour used motor oil over it just to help warm things up.
***
EXPLANATIONS for Polar Shift.
1. Global Warming, heck maybe they're right. Maybe the ice melting is rotating the planet.
(Or maybe the planet rotating is melting the ice, though I would think that would mean the ice would merely shift directions.)
2. Maybe Three Gorges Dam in China
3. Maybe Fukishima earthquake, tidal wave, what not also contributed to the shift.
4. Perhaps we're applying the sure and steady scientific error. Where we assume things ALWAYS happen at the same rate. So if we see that the pole moved 1 meter in 300 years. We assume that it moved a centimeter a year. Rather than having any proof that the average movement is consistent. It may have moved 3 centimeters one year and 1/2 a centimeter another year.
5. If we used logic, we'd quit feeding the poor, quit having wars and devote ALL of our money to get us to a second planet and solar system. I mean seriously, what's the point of saving the poor only to have them wiped out by an asteroid. Just saying....Bruce Willis can't save us every time. I mean yes, he stopped Armageddon, and Cobra...but really. Can we rely on him to bail our butts out of every mess?
Changes like this have happened time and time again ... and the world will continue and life will continue
The problem is it might not be habitable by 7billion humans ... this *will* affect you
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Sorry, do companies actually make money polluting, as in that is their business strategy?
Because otherwise, not polluting isn't going to increase the cost of living or cause cripling distress on the poor. The only ones distressed are those making profits from pollution. I.e. the wealthy.
But if the environment were clean, there would be less illness, which reduces the time the poor work, reduces their pay and can get them fired. So pollution can be causing cripling distress to the poor.
I'm afraid you're going to have to make up something better.
No it wasn't. You are confused. People have been searching for it for 500 years. A little over a century ago they gave up and decided to just build the Panama Canal.
Scheduled maintenance.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Why not take the next logical step and say, "Learn yoga so you can be flexible enough to bend over and kiss your ass goodbye"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Good grief!
As anyone whose studied astronomy and paleoclimatology would know, (ok, I admit, there aren't too many out there) the Earth's axis shifts over time espically when coming out of a long term Ice Age cycle.
Yep, hard as it is to believe, we're actually coming out of a long term Ice Age. There are of course different levels of ice ages within an Ice Age, due to a number of varying factors, (Solar intensity, volcanic eruptions, possibly going through nebular clouds, and even Gamma Ray Bursts and nearby stellar novas, to name a few) Even with over 7 billion people on Earth, the amount of effect we have on the overall environment, (Not cities and farmlands) is actually quite small.
Heck, when Mount Penatubo in the Philipeans (SIC) blew, it put more of the same pollutants that the Climate Crazies worry about, (Sulfur dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrides and just plain dirt) than the entire Human Race had done during the entire Industrial Revolution up to that point. The effects? A lowering of the world's average temperature by between 2 to 3 degrees Celcius for three years.
Yes, pollution is a health hazard and Yes, I hate breathing it as much as anybody, and YES, I do thi9nk we need to lower the pollutants we create, but for the Sake of Humanity, QUIT THE CLIMATE PANIC!
Enough said,
Peace out!
JAsonAW3
You are telling me the tree shook because of the apple falling from it....?
Feasible, but unlikely in this case.
No, you'll get the real 'oops' when you will realise that you didn't check that 'Post Anonymously' box.... twice.
You can't handle the truth.
And if it is, too goddamn bad, because I'm not giving up my Buick for some sissy electric car that doesn't even have exhaust pipes.
Plus, Jesus is gonna come back way before we have to worry about global warming. And when he gets back, he's not going to want to see a bunch of Priuses. He's going to want to see 400hp American Iron.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Now Santa won't have to travel as far to get to my house!
That candy striped pole in the front of Santa's workshop? Can't they just dig it up and re-plant it where it should be?
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
Like all of their novels, it was awful, but Pournelle has some special politics he likes to push. He's a whackjob.
Have gnu, will travel.
There is pretty clear causality here - melting ice results in a shift of mass on the surface of the Earth, which causes a change in the moments of inertia and products of inertia of the planet - due to conservation of angular momentum this results in the axis of rotation shifting.
Just a thought, but have they stopped to consider that maybe the polar shifts might be causing the melting ice, and not the other way around?
It's a bit of a stretch to suppose that there's some other force changing the Earth's angular momentum in just such a way as to be the same as that expected from the mass transfer from the Greenland ice sheet to the oceans.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We could create a control system. Carbon is the problem. Tax every breath.
I suppose the problem with the dog will be fixed by the global worming mentioned by Chrisq.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
How exactly is the surface temperature which is insulated from the magnetic core by quite a large layer of crust changing the orientation of the earths magnetosphere? I thought that the movement of the pole was caused mostly by an increase in seismic activity over recent times (as in we've had more severe incidents which have been said to shift the pole) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole It has been known ALL MY LIFE that the magnetic poles wander, and in fact have undergone complete pole reversal on average once every 450,000 years. This is not a linear process, and will experience times of acceleration and deceleration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal in fact there were articles on how the magnetic north has been shifting further and faster each year all over the place and something about runways having to repaint the north indicator on runways. (you look it up) Anyway.. to throw some tinder onto this fire.. I've always believed that our period of climate change (bear in mind we are always in a period of climate change as climate is NOT static and its stupid to think it is) may more directly influenced by cloud formation than we are lead to believe. Hence changing the magnetic north will change the distribution of Cosmic Carged Particles and this in turn will affect local climate areas. Not to mention that since the mass adoption of Jet engines (the time scale on this matches with a lot of the accelerating climate change graphs too by the way) on aircraft we have noticed artificial coalescence of clouds by compression of the water vapour through the engine.. this causing Contrails or whathaveyou which if you watch over the course of a day (anecdotal - take with a grain of salt) seem to cascade into larger cloud formations.. this plus the location of clouds in respect to the land mass I believe needs more studying before we can make any solid claims on the trends that cause/indicate/influence global climate.. and further than that local weather. ALSO it is very important to note that in a warmer environment that there will be increase in atmospheric CO2 as the ocean will not be able to absorb as much CO2 at higher temperatures (check out solubility of CO2 in water). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/ So in summary while I strongly believe most of these types of reports are funding seeking scare mongering nonsense, I do believe that we are in a state of climate change, people do have an effect, and we should all be doing our part to plan for a better future.. but please.. please.. base decision and actions on an accurate model. if the model doesnt work with more data, fix the model. Im not a denialist.. I just dont believe we have an accurate model yet.
If you take the known mass transfer between the ice sheets and the ocean, you can predict its effect upon the rotational axis of the Earth. You can then compare that prediction to what's actually observed by measurements of the location of the rotational axis of the Earth. This is what the paper did.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I think external forces, a cycle of our solar system, are skewing the planet's axis of rotation and its magnetic poles, which in turn is what decides the geographic poles, climate and weather.
I think it will eventually reach a climactic maximum with an increase in geological and meteorological effects, after which it will settle again. All part of the natural cycle of Earth and the solar system. This is how Earth is "renewed" with new mountain ranges, new oceans, new continents.
If this never occurred, Earth would've been one fine mix of sand and water at this point. Clearly the "youngest" parts of Earth are the tall, still sharp mountain ranges not yet ground down by time and weather, such as the Himalayas, and the deserts are the oldest parts, not renewed in a long time.
galloping east towards Greenland at a rate of more than 7 milliarcseconds per year
>galloping
>milliarcseconds/yr
To put it into english:
1 arcsecond is 1/3600 of a degree (1/(60x60)). One thousandth of this is 1/3,600,000 degree. There are 7 of these per year.
I will leave it to the reader to determine how many thousands of years it will take to move one degree from where it is now, excluding normal precession.
--
BMO
God damn ManBearPig!
"Do unto others as you would have them do nought to sixty."
Actually by that metric the electric vehicles are still ahead.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
And still, massive numbers of people will deny both the effect ( melting of the ice cap ) and the cause ( global warming ), even when faced with measurable, reproducible results.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
So you're telling me that they used polar coordinates?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Or to paraphrase, "Brakes are gone...no point in steering!"
There's lots of stuff we can do to make sure that we're not making things worse. We know we're making SOME things worse, so why don't we stop it with those things?
Climate changes. But climate changes tend to happen on geological timescales, barring utter catastrophe. I'm sure the K-T Boundary impact changed the climate, but that was a world-changing catastrophic impact that effectively lit the atmosphere on fire for a few hours. I haven't seen one of those recently, but I've seen what humans can do given some time and ambition.
Stop it with the calls to inaction. We've got enough evidence that it's a good idea to hedge our bets and start cutting back on the needless waste that we're so good at. We can do better, so let's do better.
It seems pretty obvious that it's partly natural and partly human. An article I saw a few days said CO2 levels are higher now than at any time in the last four million years. However, the Milankovitch cycles are a huge part of it but do not explain our present warming; see the wikipedia quote below.
It's too bad (for our descendants, not us) that the industrial revolution didn't wait a few thousand years; if anyone is still alive ten thousand years from now they'll thank us for global warming.
The problem, though, is that if we are more responsible than nature for global warming, it could lead to a cascade that would turn Earth into Venus; we're at the warm side of the Sun's habitable zone.
Shifting of the magnetic and true poles has been documented to happen for MILLIONS of years. I recall first learning about this phenomenon 25 years ago as part of a PBS documentary on "Earth".
So because the poles are shifting, and there's been periodic warming, the immediate conclusion is one is caused by the other. That's called confirmation bias.
Every few weeks or so Slashdot should automatically generate and post something along the line of "Global Warming causes xxxx" Where xxxx is any randomly selected dire event or silly occurrence
Just attribute the story to "researches" so hackers and virus writers can get in on the fun.
Then, randomly select some list of shit that people wouldn't like and tell everyone that all that shit is a consequence of xxxx.
Oh, and BTW, I've been told since grade school that the earth wobbles on its axis. Who are these "researchers"?
heres the lo down form Canadian and Russian scientists i learned about a year ago , i cant remember the link ( new pc so some stuff i lost )
the earths magnetic north ( true north ) has moved 50KM towards Siberia....and the fact is its speeding up such that inside 50 years it will be sitting inside Siberia.
ask your self then how animals and plants were found under the ice of the north pole and this apparently has happened about every 25000 years....and right at one point will have a 5-10 year period where it might slide as they say and lose our magnetic shield killing a lot of life potentially.
still just a theory but it usually precedes a massive ice age.....well global warming has affected that and we may either get a real violent shove OR it may just be slowing the process and the danger there is that this 5-10 yr period may because of that be longer and thus more dangerous.
someone might google or find the article that talked about it.....chris hapgood had a wild idea that the earth violently does this move causing global catastrphies but is largely seen as a nut...then they started noticing this shift.Also the animals and plants and even dinosaurs at regions that could not be possible....
No problem, I usually fart facing south so it will reach an equilibrium.
What a load of BS, really from an US University ?
Way to lose all credibility.
"Stupid real-life science is gonna convince politicians to make us pollute less which is less cheap! I think I'll take that fictional science from The Core instead, that's way cooler!"
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Of course it's a very serious topic that should concern anyone who wants to maintain a convenient climate, but do we have to link everything to global warming now?
I see this question come up a lot, but let's phrase it another way:
If something negative is found to be linked to global warming, should it be covered up?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Do unto others as you would have them do nought to sixty."
Actually by that metric the electric vehicles are still ahead.
Actually, by that metric, not really.
The quickest-accelerating commercially available electric vehicle, the Tesla Roadster Sport, currently 0-60's in 3.7 seconds.
By comparison, there are 53 commercially available vehicles with internal combustion engines that 0-60 in 3.6 seconds or better. The top of that list, the Ariel Atom V8, reaches 60 from 0 in 2.3 seconds. If you want more metal around you than an exoskeleton, you can get a Nissan GT-R R35 or 2012 Porsche 911 Turbo S and get to 60 in 2.7 seconds.
If you want to go non-commercial, racing applications:
Top Fuel dragsters typically go from 0-60 in 0.2 seconds, with 0-100 in 0.8 seconds, and generally 0-250 in about 3 seconds. Those are powered by supercharged 502 cubic inch V8's.
The quickest accelerating 4-wheeled electric vehicle ever produced for racing purposes reaches 60 from 0 in 1.2 seconds. 100 from 0 in 2.5 seconds. And beyond 100, considerably falls behind. Even the world's fastest electric drag bike is still slower by 0.4 seconds to 60.
There have been several papers on the topic every year in the geodesy section of the American Geiphysical Union meetings. Earthquakes, ice sheet melting, mantle convention velocity changes, seasonal ocean storms all cause mass shifts int he earth and a slight change in pole position. Before satellite GPS geophysicists used Very Long Baseline radio telecscope inferometry of quasars to measure pole position. VLBI is essentially a "galactic GPS" but more expensive than satellite GPS methods.
A closely related geophhyscial measurement is Length-of-Day, that is the time between repeat viewing of stars which varies nanoseconds per day and milliseconds per year. All the same large earth mass-moveoments that shift poles also change Length of Day.
Global warming also made me fat. I drink milkshakes in the summer time.
You should move to Greenland to offset the loss of mass from the ice melting.
Ergo propter hoc?
Let's imagine that aliens start to pour carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years so we quickly can conclude that the net effect would be a warmer atmosphere. We would definitely try to do something to the matter, because well, the risk assessments would be increasingly worrying.
So why is it so difficult to act now?
And true, the climate has changed. Also it's normal that gamma ray explosions happen in space and they might destroy most of the Earth's atmosphere. It's still rather insane to explode one on Earth.
This about like predicting the direction an elephant is walking by calculating the effect of the mass of it's tail swishing back and forth on the overall mass of its body.
Really, any calculations they attempt would be swamped by the chaotic nature of the earth. Just imagine all the variables they would have to account for. Now, multiply that by a few billion and you would still be clueless.
They can write down all the numbers and formulas they want but it's still all nothing but a Scientific Wild Ass Guess. A guess with a built in bias to boot.
Please stop going crazy.
"Just when the GL discussions couldn't get any dumber, someone tries to pull off a claim like this... AND TOTALLY REDEEMS THEMSELVES!" --Modified Dumb and Dumber Quote
I was comparing to this guy's Buick, but I'm actually surprised it's only 53 vehicles. I know EVs are quick from zero and tail off and assumed this would put them at a disadvantage compared to most hatchbacks, much less sports cars.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
OK, this is SERIOUS!
Time to empty our nuclear arsenals in the deserts and kick up enough dust and sand to cool off the planet. Then, we'd achieve nuclear disarmament and cure the "global warming" problem at the same time.
Hell, maybe empty them into the population centers and make sure that humans can't warm the earth any more.
Considering that every direction is south from the north pole?
"Do unto others as you would have them do nought to sixty."
Actually by that metric the electric vehicles are still ahead.
Yeah, but in America we don't USE metric.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
According to a particular Book of Mormon - "Hello. Did you know that Jesus was born here in the USA?"
Well, strictly speaking every direction is also East. Although given that every direction is also West that probably cancels...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Climate change is real. Slashdot is dominated by people who deny facts and science.
At this point, it's probably easier to list the things global warming isn't affecting.
-Styopa
I'm not giving up my Buick for some sissy electric car that doesn't even have exhaust pipes.
Sissy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLCdP6sMN9k
:=)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
We're talking about climate not weather you moran.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The problem I see here is that every skeptic is deemed a denier.
Certainly should any link between the climate changes and events on our planet be covered up. But in the scientific process all results must be replicable. In this case they should release the raw data and the algorithms they're using to obtain their results from the raw data and also to enable the validation of any data obtained. The same rules apply to any papers that try to disproof any links to climate change of course.
They thing that really scares me is that both followers and deniers seem to accept anything that serves their belief as long as someone with a PhD is willing to put their name on a paper.
so if we move the pole a little further north does the northwest passage eventually become the southwest passage? or maybe just the west passage?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Is there anything that isn't caused by global warming? It's getting silly at this point.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Who is "our"?
Are you a member of some scientific elite and the rest of us poor ignorant slobs?
Since I will not pay to see the paperI looked up maps of magnetic pole shifts. They all looked like this one. Since the turn of the century the North Pole has been moving toward Russia and is still going in a straight line. The article talks about a course change in 2005 but that is not shown on the map. Why is their information so different than the information available to the public?
The second point is that there are only 400 years of data to look at. We have no idea if this kind of change in the speed and direction of polar shift is a common occurrence and this time just happens to correlate with ice loss. Notice the major shifts in direction in 1700 and 1850? I don't remember any reports of major ice loss around either of those times. So why did the direction shift so drastically? This points to the shifts be more random that the authors of the paper believe. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
This looks like another study by climate scientists who look at changes in the earth and then look for a way to link them to global warming. By not looking at alternative explanation they are decreasing the validity of their study. To me, suspect studies like this do not strengthen the global warming case but weakens it as I am always suspicious about theories supported by suspicious science.
This has nothing to do with climate change, the poles flip ever 1/2 million years or so. There are plenty of studies on this and have been for years. It's just that the mass media has ignored it.
Yet another story from the warmist conspiracy, piling more so-called "science" on top of their propaganda.
The reason for the pole shift is simple. Due to a toxic spill of lead and cadmium paints, Santa Claus was forced to move his workshop slightly. The Elves are no longer permitted egg-nog while on duty.
P.S.
I'm a climate skeptic goddamnit. It really pisses me off when warmists keep calling me a denialist. Only people with no real evidence to back up their case resort to name-calling. Until someone can prove to my satisfaction that the pole shift wasn't caused by a toxic spill at Santa's workshop, my explanation is just as valid as any warmist's "theory".
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Hang on, boys, we're going for the "E" ticket ride here.
There was this guy called Adolph that shafted the Poles too
So, when our magnetic axis is aligned with our spin axis, 'everything' will be back to normal. :)
I mean, do you want the weather that you want or the weather that was intended from the beginning?
Climate 'change is good'?
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
So, wait, if I read this correctly, it only seems logical to imagine that radical polar shift could be related to global mass distribution. If the polar ice were to vanish tomorrow, wouldn't the denser mass areas be located on one of the larger continents... potentially leading to polar drift towards that mass as it pulls closer to center (like a dancer or top spinning)?
I wonder if anyone has ever correlated radical polar shifts with global mass distribution?
Please let me know how you intend to reproduce the results.
Perhaps you can get NASA to help get you to one of those Earth-like planets they keep finding, develop a civilization, industrialize it and see if we get the same results? Even then, it wouldn't be exactly the same.
That'd put a burden of disclosure and reproducibility on climate scientists that would be unique to climate science. Why is it not sufficient that different groups, following different methodologies, using different data, with different funding sources, in different fields draw the same conclusions?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Wow, so I guess this paper published 43 years ago in 1970 titled “Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change” must have been way ahead of its time.
Go find one that says they profit from polluting and wish to continue to pollute rather than reduce profit.
Not one will admit it.
So either you're calling them all lying weasels, or their profit isn't made from pollution.
And the insistence is that this will somehow hurt the poor people. Well, they aren't the ones profiting as you claim, are they. So they're not going to get hit. And if it's being paid for by the rich, then the cleanup won't cost them, will it.
Oh, and GrinIdiot, the energy companies don't profit from polluting, they lose profit when they do. All that oil in Exxon Valdez? Lost profit. Energy companies profit from selling energy. Not from selling pollution. Electric companies will make money selling power from non-polluting sources just as effectively (no, MORE effectively, since they don't have to hedge against an Deepwater Horizon event) as fossil fuels.
Claiming that the economy will be ruined and people will starve is just climate alarmism (the deniers love to project their failings on everyone else, you notice?).
"When mass is lost in one part of a spinning sphere, its spin axis will tilt directly towards the position of the loss "
Soooo.....China's going to be the new North Pole?
The two things that spring to mind immediately are the Pacific volcano a couple decades ago and the Japanese earthquake, both of which were reported to have permanently (to the limit of our near nonexistent understanding) changed the Earth's very orbit itself.
So forgive me if I am more than a whole lot skeptical of their childishly simple cause = effect assumption. There are literally hundreds of thousands of inputs we know of their model likely omits and probably millions we don't even know about.
This is yet another "Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with ax" story.
Lol @ you for messing up your precious post with the assumption that precession has anything to do with where the rotational axis of the Earth intersects its surface.
The earths poles shift. they have since the band of molton iron in the core gave her a magnetic field.
the geographic pole has been shifting since before man discovered them. And the fossil records show us that the magnetic poles reverse themselves on average, about every 450,000 years.
To even attempt to blame pole shift on the fallacy of global warming is inexcusable science. It's attempting to garner research grants by exploiting the bad science of the week.
There is no doubt that the Earths climate is changing. But the Earth has a dynamic climate. That means, it is constantly in a state of change. Humans just don't live long enough to notice most of it. Sure, the average global temperature may be rising, right now. But what about 20 years from now when it starts falling?
Global Warming is a myth created by and perpetuated by, scientists who directly profit off the belief the public has in global warming.
The plain and simple face is, ever since earth gained an atmosphere, it's climate has been changing. Does man contribute to the change? Without a doubt. But consider this:
Before humans came on te scene, the Earth has had average temperatures ~30-40 degrees higher than they are now, making the whole planet a hot, humid, tropical jungle, and average temperatures ~ -30, when the entire planet was covered in a sheet of ice. Humans didn't exist at either time.
The climate changes. Deal with it.
That's a selfish and willfully ignorant position.
Selfish because you care more about your tax dollars than about the future of the planet, and willfully ignorant because you're not only not interested in studying the issue further, but you oppose research and education because it will come out of tax dollars.
You're free to have that opinion of course. Just saying you shouldn't be proud of it.
People are so gullable here, assuming this study is accurate. I don't believe how they could possibly be as accurate as the say they are measuring any such shift. Going into this they had to have had some motive or indication that such a shift could be happening in the first place or even possible. And to a few centimeters?? I am not buying it.
Isn't the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan a more likely candidate for a planetary shift on axis?
Guys, I think this fucking shill is trying to imply that climate change is NOT man made?! DONMOD this fagget climate denier!
Parent should be moderated as funny!
Could the Japanese earthquake and the magnitude of water it moved be a factor here?
Since we are spinning in free-fall on this planet a violent flailing on at one point would affect our rotational angle, but would the tsunami and earthquake have affected it a measurable amount?
I got thinking that many Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian and other nations have left us with structures (pyramids, temples, etc) strongly aligned with stars and other celestial items. Seems they are still aligned, despise 1000s of years. If the Earth has been shifting since eons, how come those are still aligned?
If you are tempted to say the time scale isn't the same, remember that in only 8 years, it's moved 20cm according to the fine summary and we're not experiencing the first GW.
The points of this post is not to discredit GW, nor the shift we observe, nor the Grand History of mankind as we know it, but to gather opinions on how to reconcile those 2 seemingly incompatible points.
JigJag
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
On the plus side, if we continue with business as usual the climate crisis may well become severe enough quickly to wipe out most of humanity before we have a chance to *completely* strip-mine and poison the planet, which may be a long-term (millenia-scale) win for both us and the planet. Climate change at least allows for the possibility of organisms to be transplanted to freshly suitable environments. And population growth seems to have a close inverse relationship to quality of life, so if we can retain our technology through such a crisis the population may never grow much beyond the decimated levels, making a sustainable society far easier to maintain.
Why yes, there are days when black optimism is the best I can muster. Why do you ask?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Even if these events are related, it could also be that global warming is caused by the shift of the poles, not the other way around.
Climate changes. Has done that for millions of years. Poles have moved all over the map as well. The core of the earth rotates at a different speed than the crust. Also for millions of years. No-one has a full understanding of the entire complex interactions. Studies like these will be cause for government bodies to invent new taxes and levies to "stop the poles from moving".
Let's face it people, there is nothing we can do, accept it and deal with it.
Fox News much?
Every single statement you have made above is, at least in part, false.
You have no evidence whatsoever to support your wild assertion that "pole shift might be causing global warming", while completely ignore the growing body of evidence that the opposite is true. In other words, no, just making shit up and stating it as some kind of conjecture worthy of consideration does not make it true.
Yes, the climate has changed for millions of years, but if the observable data that correlates with a warming climate are to be believed, then the planet has never seen a change happening as rapidly as it is currently undergoing.
Government's won't "invent" new taxes to stop the poles from moving. They didn't "invent" new taxes to prevent climate change. Carbon credits != tax.
Let's face it people, some people just blindly accept what they hear on Fox News because it's what they want to hear and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, call them on it it when they turn around and parrot such bullshit.
We know we're making SOME things worse, so why don't we stop it with those things?
That is a fine idea, go ahead and stop doing those things...oh, I see, you want to force me and everyone else to stop as well. Or maybe you want to be like Al Gore who is making a fortune doing more of those things than just about everybody else while going around and demanding that the government stop everybody else from doing them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
That's easy - if the aliens do it it (presumably) profits them, so our defensive reaction is easy to justify and cost us nothing beyond the actions themselves. When it's *us* doing it, it's *us* that is profiting, so any defensive action will be much more expensive since it also costs us all that lost profit. Also it's much easier to motivate people with the whole "us versus them" instinctual reactions rather than "we should really stop being so shortsighted". After all, if our brains didn't weight immediate pleasure over long-term difficulties we wouldn't have nearly the population problem we do. And that only requires looking a few years ahead, as a species we're just completely unsuited to properly weighting consequences that won't arrive for multiple decades. Heck, until very recently the time between puberty (call that the point where people started making their own significant life decisions) and death was typically only a decade or two.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Regardless, we should focus on cutting pollution even if global warming is not man-made.
I wish this was more obvious to more people.
If there is no relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures then that means we have absolutely no idea how planetary ecosystems work at all.
If we don't understand our atmosphere does it make any sense to be modifying as a side effect of industrialization?
My only hope is we actually figure out how all this works and become environmentally neutral before it's too late.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
you are misinformed, the position of the solstice sun has indeed changed and temples get out of alignment
For example:
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/egyptkarnak.htm
P.S. I'm a climate skeptic goddamnit. It really pisses me off when warmists keep calling me a denialist. Only people with no real evidence to back up their case resort to name-calling.
Then you might want to reconsider referring to their side as a "conspiracy". And I say that as someone who actually agrees with you that their use of "denialist" is ad hominem and thus an anti-scientific tactic.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Moderation of your post demonstrates conclusively that members of the Global Warming cult have no sense of humor.
"Warmist" IS name-calling.....
Ofc we can do something. We could stop global warming and see if the axis stops moving. Would be a great win for sciense. And thechnical speaking: a simple experiment, too!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The poles shift every 32,000 years or so and were scheduled to be happening at this point in time. It might have devastating effects as easily as it might be completely unapparent to all of us. However, this is not caused by humans.
Eeek! What nonsense.
First of all: a shift of the axis by 2 cm means only that somewhere on the world a small stripe around the globe (2cm wide) gets slightly warmer, and another stripe gets a bit colder. However the glaciers stay where they are, they dont hopp into the warmer stripe to happy melt there,
Second and on top of all: the sun is cooling since about 15 years and is in a solar minimum output. (Honestly, everyone should know that) And finally: the difference between a solar maximum and minimum is about 1%. That is roughly 1/3 of a degree centigrade difference on earth.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
>the pole drifted southeast towards northern Labrador
Isn't any movement away from the pole always due south? How can this be "southeast? From the perspective of a person in Edmonton, it may have moved southeast, but from the perspective of a person in Edinburgh, it has moved southwest.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
10-50 years of data is a blink of an eye in the history of the world. Of course, these lamebrain idiots never take into account the LIQUID core of the earth, shifting plates, geomagnetic output from the sun....nope, it's all MAN's fault!
Well, you see the thing is that for the most part they *do* release the raw data and at least the basics of their algorithms as part of the peer review process. In fact much of the raw data is in public databases that everyone studying the situation can draw on. There certainly should be room for skeptics, but at this point the basic fact of anthropogenic global warming has been pretty solidly established for several decades, and all the science is focussed on trying to predict the details of the changes that are coming so that we can hope to mitigate them, or at the very least prepare for the inevitable. In that environment anyone claiming AGW doesn't exist is making an extraordinary claim, and needs extraordinary evidense to back it up. Or at the very least extremely credible evidence and a solid counter-theory. But what we actually see is politicians, large business interests, and the occasional scientist operating well outside their area of expertise shouting "Nuh-Uh!", and at best engaging in some pseudo-scientific handwaving to explain their position, which inevitably falls apart when analyzed critically. Meanwhile the climate keeps shifting even faster than the models from the middle of last century predicted, in part due to positive feedback loops we didn't know about at the time, but mostly because the rate of human CO2 production has been increasing significantly faster than assumed in even the worst-case scenarios.
In an environment where essentially all evidence and theory supports the existence of AGW, what exactly would you call someone who claims it doesn't exist without any evidence to the contrary? What would you call an African witch-doctor who vehemently denies the existence of bacteria and viruses and encourages people to instead murder albinos for their magical body parts and tells AIDs victims that they can be cured by raping a virgin? Denier seems as good a word as any, with any derogatory connotations being very well deserved. Criminal might likewise be a justified title - after all they're encouraging behavior which will be considerably harmful to everyone involved.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
We have the year 2013. Not 1963.
If you call your self a skeptic, your a denialist forr me.
You should have learned the basic physics background in school. Obviously you have not. You are adult enough to use the internet. So you have the option too catch up.
Global warming caused mainly by CO2 (and emphasized by MH4 and water vapour) is a fact since 1890 ... so what is so hard in educating yourself?
You don't educate yourself, so you are deep in denial, not in sketicism.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sure the Tesla can beat a Viper in the 1/4 mile, but how about a straight-up 300 mile race?
Anyway, what good is a car that can go that fast if it doesn't make that satisfying "vroom! vroom!" noise? When I play Need for Speed:Most Wanted, the Tesla is my least favorite vehicle (even though it can beat just about any other car) because it just doesn't sound fast.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So after a million years Sun will not rise from east anymore.. where then ?
I think perhaps you didn't fully read my post..... because you're rather earnestly arguing that Santa Claus isn't responsible for the polar shift. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Its seems people have yet to figure out the global warming sham. Even after recent NASA satellites confirmed that oceanic temperatures have stabilized and have actually reversed course, even after average mean surface temperatures have fluctuated and have not seen the claimed +2.3C rise in the past decade. LOL! So now its called climate change, not global warming.
Yet our mass media loves to distort showing pictures of melting glaciers and drowning polar bears. The reality is we have had climate change (not global warming) long before man walked the earth. Large parts of Europe were covered by glaciers less than 1000 years ago! We have climate cooling (dark ages, low food crops, starvation) and global warming (renaissance, plentiful food crops) in history. Realize there is global warming on Mars as it once was a hospitable planet. There are plenty of scientists (including prominent folks from MIT, Stanford that have said its a sham on camera, although they will never publish a piece refuting it simply because they don't want to be targets).
So what is the purpose of all this global warming/climate change talk? -- Money in lieu of carbon taxing the crap out of us. The bankers want it real bad as it will open up a huge new revenue stream for them. The eco folks and left are used as pawns being convinced we can actually do something to protect mother earth. We are arrogant to think we can change a massive cycle. We can't all we can do is adapt.
On the range.... give it a few years. The Tesla already has a 200+-mile range (though not when racing, obviously), but it'll get better. It's also worth pointing out that the Tesla Model S in that video is not a sports car. It's a nearly 5000-pound luxury road sedan. The fact that it's even remotely competitive with a Viper which weighs 2000 pounds less, and has a monstrous engine, is very impressive.
As for sound... in the real world I really like the utter silence of my LEAF.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No, "our" is referring to the people proposing solutions that are ultimately rejected.
I say that as someone who actually agrees with you that their use of "denialist" is ad hominem and thus an anti-scientific tactic.
My point was actually affirming the validity of ad hominem as a basis to decline to waste one's time fruitlessly engaging an argument as if it were reasonable and rational. If you go back and read my previous post more carefully you'll find it would be laughably foolish for anyone to argue I was wrong :)
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Oh. Well, whoooosh, then. :-)
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
But all directions from the Poll are south.
How can they say it is migrating east to Greenland?
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Even if these events are related, it could also be that global warming is caused by the shift of the poles, not the other way around.
It's a type of feedback loop, they are both causing and caused by each other.
The cause is the melting of the Greenland icecap. The effect is that the decrease of mass in the Greenland icecap (caused by the water running into the ocean) caused the center of mass of the Earth to shift, which in turn caused the axis of rotation of the Earth to shift beyond what would be normally expected by precession and nutation.
cool
The discrepancy is easy to reconcile: Your statement that these structures are still aligned with the constellations is false.
For instance, Egyptian pyramids were aligned with the constellation Orion when they were built. It is now possible to date them by looking at how far that alignment has drifted since then. Likewise, Greek sailors have Greek names for constellations that are no longer visible from Greece (or within ship travelling distance of the technology that was time) but were visible from Greece at the time that those names were coined.
The planet's axis precesses through a circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_%28astronomy%29), which takes about 26,000 years to complete. In turn, the axis it will visit regions (roughly corresponding to the Zodiac signs) about every 2000 years. Remember that song, "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?" That was because the Earth's axis will be moving into Aquarius starting in 2060 or so. (We are in the Age of Pisces now.)
I think the real question here is what are "scientists" in Texas doing talking about "global warming?" Based on reading past slashdot comments, I thought all of Texas and Texans were crazy uneducated, backwater, right winged, gun loving, crazy people that the rest of the country would be better off without- certainly not scientists doing climate research and at most, if they were it couldn't possibly agree with or even imply that climate change is a real phenomena.
obviously you aren't interested in science at all.......
you viper sucks, It can't even beat my Yacht in the Americas cup.
It's not our fault you can only justify you massive waste full car if you annoy other people.
You are a wanna be, and a poser.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You want me to list my cred? You want to measure my green-peen, as it were?
I walk to work. I live 15 minutes away. To do that, I live in a small apartment with my partner. By living in a smaller space, our carbon footprint is markedly lower than people in bigger spaces. We have a single car that we don't drive very often, and when we do, it's on the highway. It's 6 years old, and I don't plan on replacing it any time soon. It's a turbo-diesel, so it's very good on fuel (though we know now that it's not so great on particulates--but it's still better for me to keep it than to incur the overhead of buying a new one). I own several bicycles, because I'm a bike racer. I recycle. I eat relatively little meat, and it's getting less every year. My electricity comes from hydro.
And yeah, I DO want a carbon tax to take into account the negative externalities not accounted for in the price of carbon-based fuels. Just because CO2 is invisible doesn't mean it has no effect on anything. I also think that big pipelines like Keystone XL are a bad idea because they encourage more fossil fuel use when we should be cutting back, and I try to vote in a way that promotes my environmental beliefs.
Al Gore isn't my messiah. I'm Canadian, so David Suzuki is much more my style.
So, yes. I want you to live like me, and I'm better than you. Are you happy now?
we do understand atmosphere, and yes that does make sense becasue it's trapping the heatr. OCntrary to what the media, tlaking heads, and ignorant politician tell you its a fact.
You don't have to understand every single fact of something for it to be true.
That would be akin to saying gravity isn't real.
We know, for a fact, we are increasing CO2.
we know, for a fact, that CO2 traps heat.
We know, for a fact, the heating is occurring in the lower parts of the atmosphere
We know, for a fact, that there is a trend happening on top of normal historic cycles.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So one side wants to stop poisoning everyone as reasonably as possible, the other side want people to have to breath their poison.
When you can keep all you pollution on your property and impact no one else, then, and only then, will you even begin to have a point.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
no, you are a denialist; there is a differnce.
At this point there is no ration skeptical argument left. It's like saying you are skeptical of the theory of gravity.
Sorry but all the other possible causes have been shut down.
All the data point to the increase in CO2.
You gt some new data that point to another cause? great, lets review it. You can write a paper and get a god damn Nobel prize for the new science you would have to had discover.
Don't think being ignorant is being skeptical. it is not. Ration and critical thinking is being a skeptical.
.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
scary bit from the paper:
In the late 19th century, prior to the
industrial revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was about
290 ppm. This had risen to 314 ppm in 1960, and to just over 320 ppm in 1970.
and now ~400ppm.
But still, these idiots argue with no facts against mountains of facts and somehow thing their opinion should carry weight.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You gt some new data that point to another cause? great, lets review it.
You overlooked the other cause mentioned in my post.
Perhaps my post should be subject to a recall lol
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
WTF are you talking about?
I read the article. So I know that.
Did you click reply on the wrong comment?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That's fine, as long as you accept that I am not willing to live like that. And that it is not your place to tell me how to live. I happen to think that everyone should live according to their beliefs. I, also, believe that if people actually believe something, they will actively try to convince others to believe it and work to live accordingly. However, I will resist when others attempt to force me to live according to their beliefs.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
CO2 is not poison. Go ahead and try and live without it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The reason why the poles changed course in 2005 is due to the effects of Nibiru getting closer....
Yes, the science of CO2's effect on the atmosphere and climate goes back nearly 200 years now to Joseph Fourier who discovered the greenhouse effect in the 1820's. In the late 1850's John Tyndall quantified the radiative absorptive characteristics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. In the 1890's Svante Arrhenius made the statement:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
(carbonic acid being what they called CO2 back then) which translates mathematically to the formula:
{delta}F = {alpha} Ln(C/C{sub0})
which is still in use today. ({x} notation used to recreate symbols I don't know how to here).
I think for a lot of "those idiots" their perceived economic well being trumps any other consideration and they think this is going to cost them too much money while not realizing that in the long run not responding in a timely way will cost far more.
we do understand atmosphere, and yes that does make sense becasue it's trapping the heatr. OCntrary to what the media, tlaking heads, and ignorant politician tell you its a fact.
You don't have to understand every single fact of something for it to be true.
That would be akin to saying gravity isn't real.
We know, for a fact, we are increasing CO2.
we know, for a fact, that CO2 traps heat.
We know, for a fact, the heating is occurring in the lower parts of the atmosphere
We know, for a fact, that there is a trend happening on top of normal historic cycles.
Exactly. The point was, even if we didn't know all that, altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere is a mindbogglingly stupid thing to do.
It does feel good to have it stated though... a nice warm fuzzy feeling...
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
I know one thing for sure and that is you are a blithering moron. It's not name calling by the way, I'm just stating the sad, sorry truth.
Is there anything that isn't caused by global warming? It's getting silly at this point.
It's not global warming, it's us. And "global warming" is just one thing we're causing.
We're also causing a mass extinction event that began about 10000 years ago (by humans severely and extremely quickly disrupting ecosystems everywhere as soon as they arrived) and has ramped up to a point that half of all species will be gone soon, with no end of this in sight. The scale of this is similar to the handful of other mass extinctions in earth's history, the speed of it is not comparable to anything that ever happened on this planet.
Anyone who thinks that 7 billion rather large and very clever and greedy mammals aren't perfectly capable to cause a planetary catastrophe or that all the fossil hydrocarbons that accumulated over millions of years and that we dug out and burned within less than hundred years aren't perfectly capable to severely change planetary climate is just too modest.
It really pisses me off when warmists keep calling me a denialist. Only people with no real evidence to back up their case resort to name-calling.
Emphasis added.
I didn't realize we were back to calling it "global warming". I'll make sure I use the correct phrase until some location experiences an unusually cold day, then I'll say "climate change".
And since we're on the topic, are we still fighting Eastasia, or is it Eurasia now?
Someone has been perfecting their approach to getting federal research grants.
How can a pole shift "east"? No matter what direction you look when you're at the north pole, you always look south. No matter if you look to the right, to the left, or turn around 180 - you always look south. So whatever direction the pole moves, it can't be anything but south. Only with reference to it's original location, ie. when it has moved south a bit, it can move east. But since it has moved, this is no longer east! it has become south, too! I think I just lost my compass ;-)
of course climate change will shift the poles, they come from a fairly cold region, and warming will make them move from the Midwest to places like Alberta.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Well, it's not aliens, it's Indians and Chinese who are spewing out a lot of the carbon dioxide. You might be fine cutting back on power usage and travel, but that subsistence farmer in India who almost starved last year is NOT going back to the farm and the factory he works at needs more power and coal is the cheapest way to produce it. Even if all of us over consuming westerners quit buying their stuff there are enough People in those two countries to sustain their economic growth and the attendant power usage. These people want what we have had for 70 years and they are not going to stop.
Why go to the effort of inventing new taxes when there are so many old ones which can be re-activated.
Oblig Micro$oft-bash : Window Tax, anyone?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I have just moved my house 2m south to benefit from the significantly improved climate further south and the reduced heating bills. That should do in those consdarned energy companies.
The pole is drifting South East : towards the Greenland ice sheets. Therefore, the glaciers are moving North West. Which should be taking them from relatively warm areas to relatively cold areas. Just what you need to encourage melting!
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The last time I checked, neither average magma nor air were strongly magnetic.
Which is why, when people first started researching magnetism (Harvey et al ; around 1580 on our calendar), they had to go an find (or have found) unusual minerals which they described as "lodestone" and similar names. Otherwise they could have gone to any random lump of lava and used that. Tools for measuring such weak magnetic fields took until well into the 19th century to be designed ... along with electrical meters and the like.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
It'll affect your children more than it will affect me.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
False ; the idiots' failure's to deal with humanity's carbon dioxide output will cost them little ; but it'll kill or severely harm their children.
Meh ; phone me when I need to give a shit.
Oh, it'll fuck your children over too.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You may be right but many of the effects of global warming are really starting to manifest themselves. Over the next 5 or 10 years they will be increasingly difficult to ignore. I guess it's the optimist in me thinks more and more people will have their "Come to Jesus" moment over this and the tide will turn.
The effects are becoming clearer. But I've been watching these things happening for my whole adult life - 30 odd years of it now. The dominant historical comment on the late 20th century is sure to be "missed opportunities".
They've been impossible to ignore for decades. But people still somehow ignored them.
Sorry, but I fail to see how getting sexually excited over a non-existent delusional Jewish carpenter's son is going to help. Do you have a lot of irrational religious whack jobs in your nation, and are they allowed out of their asylums and into power?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You should have placed the emphasis where I explain the reason for the pole shift. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The dominant historical comment on the late 20th century is sure to be "missed opportunities".
Absolutely. And extend that into the early 21st century.
They've been impossible to ignore for decades. But people still somehow ignored them.
Impossible for scientists to ignore, not that tough for the general public to ignore as most of the changes so far have been subtle, especially in the US. But as I said that's changing.
"Come to Jesus" was probably the wrong term to use (obviously it was with you). What I meant was that conditions will change in a way that forces more and more to confront the reality of climate change. Like I say I may be too optimistic about that. We'll see.
Whether a new hominid species (with an improved ability to face facts) arises ... well, we're not going to see that ourselves. Unless there's some spectacular medical technology in the pipeline, and you can bring yourself to use such.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
If global warming causes the earth's poles to shift, then we must have had it eons ago, because the poles have completely shifted places before. You can't have it both ways. Either global warming is an old phenomenon or it is not causing the poles to shift. Can't have it both ways, unless you are talking about Poles moving, which they probably did during the last mini ice age.