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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Scheduled maintenance.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
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.
Actually companies make money by passing such issues to the general public. Externalities is what they call it.
[quote]Scientists have long known that the locations of Earth’s geographic poles are not fixed. Over the course of the year, they shift seasonally as Earth’s distributions of snow, rain and humidity change. “Usually [the shift] is circular, with a wobble,” says Chen.
But underlying the seasonal motion is a yearly motion that is thought to be driven in part by continental drift. It was the change in that motion that caught the attention of Chen and his colleagues, who used data collected by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) to determine whether ice loss had shifted and accelerated the yearly polar drift.[/quote] Source
As you see there are 'natural' causes for this. But according to this article the scientists are concerned of the differences from the 'natural' patterns of these changes and link these to the 'accelerated' climate change we're currently experiencing.
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
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.
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 know you're being ironic, but I'd like to point out he's also completely wrong.
The effect of continental drift, ice melting, ocean temps, etc is a quite long studied subject (see ref below which mentions George Darwin already looked at polar wobbling). I admit not everything about the wobbling is fully understood, but at least since 2002 [1] we are quite confident that the Greenland ice melting is significant enough to cause an effect on polar motion.
The fact that random people here often think they did a better job at the science in a 20 sec post (especially if that science is related to a politically sensitive topic) is something interesting I have been observing on /. for the last 2-3 years, and is quite a disappointing trend imho.
[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/99/10/6550.full
Shake and bake due to climate change.
And I helped!
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!
If the pole moves towards Greenland, doesn't that make Greenland colder?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"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.
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.
Reducing pollution is expensive. If it was free, companies would already do it. The only reason to pollute v/s not pollute is because the former helps profits.
So if it costs more money for, let's say... food manufacturers to produce their goods, the cost of those goods will necessarily have to increase. And the people who need food will suffer because they'll have to dedicate more of their scarce resources to that acquisition. This disproportionately impacts the poor and lower class. Their lives become significantly more difficult.
Now expand that effect across all industries - energy, transportation, manufacturing - and the costs will be pervasive and damaging. We're not talking about $1 more for a loaf of bread - we're talking about everything.
Of course you're a well-off IT guy just like the rest of us, so you won't feel it. Who cares if the kids in the bad neighborhoods go to bed hungry, right? Praise Gaia!
You just answered your own question. If the wealthy are making profits from pollution, then polluting is a valid business strategy.
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....
"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
No, really, I'm curious as to how it's possible for reducing a region's solar irradiance can be a driving force for it to become warmer.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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
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.
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 Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2.
Human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2.
Volcanoes emit about 1% of the amount of CO2 that humans do, per year.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
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.
Actually, they did.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
Not at all. It's a method that's proven itself repeatedly in studies on other subjects, such as the inner structure of the Earth and the measurement of earthquakes. If you'd rather believe that geophysicists studying the earth's mantle who've never written a climate science paper in their lives are also part of The Conspiracy you're welcome to, but you're rapidly going to find yourself as the only one who isn't In On It.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Sorry, do companies actually make money polluting, as in that is their business strategy?
Energy companies make money by using what are currently cheap fossil fuels. Not having to worry about the pollution byproducts increases their bottom line and lowers the price of their product.
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.
Wrong. Then everyone will be affected if energy prices increase. The poor will have to pay a lager percentage of their income for electricity. They will also have to pay more for products that are produced or moved using energy. This includes the cost of food. So again, they will be spending a larger portion of their income on necessities.
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 agree, we need to do something to take better care of our environment. It's not good for anyone to keep going the way we have been. However the less fortunate already can't afford do purchase decent healthy food. How healthy do you think they will be if they can afford even less?
I have not seen a plan yet that would phase out fossil fuels and transition us to renewables without a considerable cost. So the cost of electricity will likely increase. If all of the farms have to switch to electric equipment, then the farmers cost of electricity is going to go up and they are going to need to pay for the new heavy equipment. That means they will need to make more money in order to stay in business. The produce then needs to be moved by truck or train to a processing location. The entire electrical grid will need to be upgraded/replaced. This will have to be paid for somehow too. I'm sure it could be done, but it's going to take a serious change in the mindset of everyone. What about countries like Canada with a huge land mass but low population density? Or poorer countries. How are they going to afford this change?
I'm afraid you're going to have to make up something better.
I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with a better straw man.
Actually, it does.
Choosing to not pollute generally has expenses associated with it which are not incurred if one does not worry about preserving the environment., which drives up the costs of the goods or services which are being produced or provided, and does ultimately end up impacting the cost of living for all, and which end up most severely affecting those who are poor.
Not that I think for a second that this an excuse to willingly pollute, only that there is some justification to the notion that trying to keep the environment clean can have certain types of negative effects upon society.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, that expertise in a field shouldn't have any weight on one's opinions, or that basic science applied in one area cannot have other applications. Neither sounds particularly sensible.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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?
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.
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.
The effect of continental drift, ice melting, ocean temps, etc is a quite long studied subject (see ref below which mentions George Darwin already looked at polar wobbling).
Trying to prop up the warmist scientific hoax with the Darwinist scientific hoax? We skeptics ain't stupid enough to fall for that one.
Waring: The above post was manufactured in a facility that processes satire. May contain traces of satire.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
Why does the stupid have to be so loud. Is there a volume knob for it someplace?
Isn't the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan a more likely candidate for a planetary shift on axis?
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.
Reducing pollution is expensive. If it was free, companies would already do it. The only reason to pollute v/s not pollute is because the former helps profits.
So if it costs more money for, let's say... food manufacturers to produce their goods, the cost of those goods will necessarily have to increase. And the people who need food will suffer because they'll have to dedicate more of their scarce resources to that acquisition. This disproportionately impacts the poor and lower class. Their lives become significantly more difficult.
You don't seem to understand. Generally speaking, it costs less to prevent pollution than it does to clear it up or deal with it's effects after it has been dispersed. Thus if the polluter reduces their pollution output, it actually increases the general prosperity because otherwise people have to pay to deal with the effects of the pollution individually or through government taxes. No matter what happens, people end up paying for the pollution, it's just that the polluter makes sure other people are paying the bulk of the (magnified) costs for their pollution. It's more efficient to have the private industry that creates the pollution deal with it.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm not sure which fantasy land you live in, but it must be nice.
Yes - there is a price people are willing to pay for things, and yes an increase in costs can be absorbed by a decrease in profits - to a point. Margins on A LOT of things right now are razor thin. You can't decrease the profit to negative. So prices go up, and people pay more. And companies find ways to fool you into doing it.
Why is ice cream sold in 1.5 quart containers now than 1/2 gallons? Because the price of ice cream has gone up considerably. Ice cream manufacturers know you won't pay $8 for a half gallon of ice cream. But if they change the shape so it looks about the same size but only holds 1.5 quarts they know they can still get away with charging $5.99. This same thing has happened with countless food products.
Or take fast food. Used to be, there were no combo meals. You bought everything a la carte. And any price change was immediately noticeable. So they introduce combos - you can SAVE $.20 by buying a meal instead of the component parts. In doing so you create a more confusing price structure. And it's way easier to inch up prices across the board. These days when I take my family to McDonald's we spend ~$30. Five years ago it was $18.
So retailers are jacking up prices. If not for the shale energy boom, things would be far more noticeably bad. Cheap energy has been a savior of this economy. But if you institute new pollution controls, you add yet one more cost to everything to negate those benefits we've been enjoying. And it's the poor who will suffer the most.
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.
Did they bother to compute the share of pole movement due to continental drift vs. movement/melting of the ice sheet? I doubt it.
The article states that this effect was detected specifically as a deviation from the expected motion due to continental drift.
Is it possible that your "doubt" has become self-reinforcing circle cutting you off from significant information? You to doubt it because you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the article because you doubted it. You assumed the scientists were stupid and incompetent, and as long as you assume they are stupid and incompetent you don't hear or accept any of the the facts and evidence they report.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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
I don't know. Why don't you go look it up and tell us?
Oh, actually studying the science is hard you say? You'd prefer to parrot Heartland Institute talking points? Tough shit. Fuck off, denialist.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
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.
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.
Your example makes no sense.
Manufactoring costs and distribution costs for a bunshof icecream that the customer buys for 8$ is perhaps 20 cents, or even 10cents. In other words: 7.80$ or ore is profit along the supply chain.
There are countless examples for similar high profit ranges: soap, washing powder, medicals etc.
What does Aspirin cost in your country? Production cost of a metric ton is perhaps 50$ ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
So after a million years Sun will not rise from east anymore.. where then ?
I won't go into your astronomical thoughts, beyond stating that yes, there are minor fluctuations in planetary dynamics due to gravitational interactions between them, but they are fairly small even on geological time scales, the sun and moon are the only bodys that have any significant effect on the Earth. due to their tidal forces, all other planets are so comparatively tiny and far away that they have minimal tidal effects and cause little more than slight variations in our orbit.
The renewal of the Earth's surface (I beleive crustal subduction is the term if you want more information) is a continuously ongoing process, but is due to the currents within the Earth's semi-liquid mantle - essentially the Earth is something like an egg, only a very thin outside layer is actually solid, and the interior is churning in ways we don't yet understand well. As for the age of things, you are somewhat correct about mountains, jagged mountains are in fact much younger than rounded ones, but the rock itself is typically quite old, it's just that it's only recently been thrust to the surface by tectonic forces. Actual new rock is created either by high compression of sand or dirt over millions of years, or created near volcanos, mostly in continental rifts such as the massive undersea Marianas Trench where two tectonic plates are spreading apart and magma is bubbling up from below to become new rock on the trailing edge of the plates. Eventually that rock will reach the far end of the plate, where it will collide with another plate and either be shoved on top of it to become mountains, or shoved beneath it to melt and rejoin the liquid mantle.
As for deserts - those aren't actually a geological formation so much as an environmental one - rock from the mountains does get ground down into sand, but whether it becomes the fertile soil or sandy desert depends on the amount of organic matter in it, which in turn depends on local weather patterns. As such deserts can actually form and disappear quite rapidly, geologically speaking. Destroying a forest for example will tend to reduce the formation of clouds (plants vent water vapor and other gasses that promote cloud formation), and thus reduce rainfall downwind, which can lead to the formation of a desert - this phenomena can actually be observed around most major metropolises, especially if you have areal photographs from several decades apart. And once formed a sandy desert can actually spread fairly quickly, with blown sand burying neighboring ecologies under fresh dunes, choking out the life that helps keep regions further downwind fertile. IIRC some borders of the Sahara are currently expanding at a rate of several hundred feet per year. In other places, especially where desert reclamaition projects have been implemented, you see the opposite effect - keeping a single narrow greenbelt watered puts enough moisture into the air that plants can take root downwind and begin converting the sand back into fertile soil.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
Precession is a change in direction the axis of rotation is pointing, not a change in the rotational axis through a body.
Probably but the movement is on the order of centimeters so take the current climate and move it 10 cm south and measure the difference. It's not going to be that significant.
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, you're confused. 32,000 years ago the TILT of the earth's axis was at lowest angle, 10,000 years ago it reached a maximum and is now heading back to low value. But it is not near a high or low.
http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age/compare.html
That angle has nothing to do with the wanders on the surface of the earth of the axis, what this article is addressing.
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.
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.
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
Well, they're not directly blaming global warming on this shift, it's the loss of ice mass on Greenland that's causing it.
Or maybe it's just lamebrain idiots like you who think scientists aren't smart enough to think of those things and take them into account.
traces! that's like saying you may find traces of water in the ocean!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The point is that what the article is talking about is not precession although it mimics precession a little because it does change the position of the sky relative to the Earth's surface. But the position of the Earth's axis of rotation relative to the sky has not changed (except as normal precession would cause it to).
BTW, Apogee and Perigee are not the correct terms since the "gee" part refers to Earth. The terms you wanted were aphelion and perihelion.
One other point is that the cycles of precession and orbital eccentricity (what you were referring to with your references to aphelion and perihelion) are not synchronous so whether the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun during perihelion or not is a matter of how the timing lines up. It doesn't happen the same every time.
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
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
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.
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"
It's been annoying me for ... well, at least a decade. But I am a scientist.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Oh, by the four balls of Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Another person whose spelling chequer can't distinguish between the shelf above a fireplace ("mantel") and something which surrounds a kernel ("mantle"). Come on people, don't be homophonephobic!
I could work numbers if you want ... but I'll take my geologist's hard hat off and go to sleep with exactly the same degree of worry tonight as I would have done last night.
Let's see ... an 18-odd cm movement in the rotation axis compared to the geographical coordinate system ... will have an effect of a factor of [0.18/(6371000^exponent)]. For exponent 2 (gravitational field); that's 4.43x10^-15 ; or if you think that surface gravity is important, exponent 1 and a factor of 2.82x10^-8 . I feel my sleep not being disturbed by these considerations. There are considerably higher probabilities for dying from literally astronomical events.
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"