Ha ha told ya so ... or well ... not quite just yet.
http://www.good.is/?p=14864>1=48001
I actually didn't listen to him so far ever, not had I even heard of him ... however I may have listened to one of his supporters/students/collaboraters I am not sure.
However I agree with a lot of his thoughts.
Al Bore, well, He lost the election so we need to pay him the credits etc. For sure. That's the agreement. Obama is going to make it happen even if Bush was reluctant to do it.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 19, 2009, 08:51:59 AM
Al Bore, well, He lost the election so we need to pay him the credits etc. For sure. That's the agreement. Obama is going to make it happen even if Bush was reluctant to do it.
Cool.
Buddha.
He WON the election, bub.
But to agree to give it up so we can have the war, he gets climate change. See how its conveniently named to cover us having an ice age too ... like in 10 years we could be fighting climate change as we start seeing snow in Los Angeles.
That cant have happened with "global warming" now can it.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 19, 2009, 09:55:37 AM
But to agree to give it up so we can have the war, he gets climate change. See how its conveniently named to cover us having an ice age too ... like in 10 years we could be fighting climate change as we start seeing snow in Los Angeles.
That cant have happened with "global warming" now can it.
Cool.
Buddha.
Actually, yes, it can. The earth is a balanced ecosystem. If the planet's temperature as a whole rises, currents change, wind patterns change, ocean salinity changes. "Global warming" is accurate only in that it means the whole planet is getting warmer on average. "climate change" is more accurate. Snow in LA, drought in Australia, bigger, stronger, more frequent hurricanes over a longer season - it doesn't get hotter everywhere, it gets hotter on average. Eastern Europe is more temperate than similarly situated parts of Canada. Why? The jet stream. Melt the ice caps, change ocean salinity, change the jet stream, voila, Eastern Europe is cold... but the earth is warmer.
Quote from: lawman on February 19, 2009, 09:01:37 AM
Quote from: The Buddha on February 19, 2009, 08:51:59 AM
Al Bore, well, He lost the election so we need to pay him the credits etc. For sure. That's the agreement. Obama is going to make it happen even if Bush was reluctant to do it.
Cool.
Buddha.
He WON the election, bub.
won teh election Eh? al bore? funny i dont see him on the list of presidents :flipoff: hes too busy tellin the world not to do things that he does :cookoo:
Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Florida, which happened to have his brother as a governor, went to Bush only after boxes of votes were "found" late in the evening. My foreign friends, including those with dual citizenship, agree that the 2000 US election would not have been certified anywhere else on earth. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court, which has a majority of Republicans.
Just thought I would point out that here in the US we don't elect our Presidents by popular vote.
I would get into how the electoral collage works, but it kinda boring. I learned all about it in grade school. :icon_mrgreen:
BeSafe
PJ
As for the "found" boxes of votes, since when does any one party have a corner on being scoundrels ?
They (Politicians) are ALL tainted to some degree.
+1 :thumb:
Quote from: PuddleJumper on February 20, 2009, 06:32:46 AM
Just thought I would point out that here in the US we don't elect our Presidents by popular vote.
I would get into how the electoral collage works, but it kinda boring. I learned all about it in grade school. :icon_mrgreen:
BeSafe
PJ
As for the "found" boxes of votes, since when does any one party have a corner on being scoundrels ?
They (Politicians) are ALL tainted to some degree.
The electoral college is great, when it doesn't involve political hackery and sabotage, not to mention nepotism, and when it doesn't countermand the popular vote. If in the Iraqi elections later this year they "lose" a bunch of votes and then "find" them such that they overwhelmingly support a particular candidate, lets see what pundits say. The 2000 election was stolen, and that theft netted two wars, the largest gap between the rich and poor in american history, a sharply conservative supreme court, the largest defecits in modern history, the largest national debt in modern history, and the largest recession, around the world, since the great depression. We will never recover from that entirely illegitimate farce they called an election, and I guarantee you we're going to hear lamenting from the deathbed about exactly how the election was faked someday.
Quote from: lawman on February 20, 2009, 08:19:03 AM
The 2000 election was stolen, and that theft netted two wars, the largest gap between the rich and poor in american history, a sharply conservative supreme court, the largest defecits in modern history, the largest national debt in modern history, and the largest recession, around the world, since the great depression. We will never recover from that entirely illegitimate farce they called an election, and I guarantee you we're going to hear lamenting from the deathbed about exactly how the election was faked someday.
I can agree with this, the last eight years have been pretty rough and through it all Bush's actions seemed sloppy and hasty and ended up putting us all through hell, and now he gets to sit back and relax and shrug off the whole thing while Obama, as well as the rest of us, have to figure how to make things better.
Quote from: Canonball on February 20, 2009, 08:55:51 AM
I can agree with this, the last eight years have been pretty rough and through it all Bush's actions seemed sloppy and hasty and ended up putting us all through hell, and now he gets to sit back and relax and shrug off the whole thing...
Until the war crimes tribunal, that is...
ha true :thumb:
Quote from: lawman on February 20, 2009, 05:19:23 AM
Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Florida, which happened to have his brother as a governor, went to Bush only after boxes of votes were "found" late in the evening. My foreign friends, including those with dual citizenship, agree that the 2000 US election would not have been certified anywhere else on earth. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court, which has a majority of Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
Al Bore has gotten over the '00 election WTF can't you?
OK OK, that set of points was good lawman, but I need to see 3-4 things - global warming has been around since the 70's.
There were many many models and many many predictions made then and through the 80's and through the 90's and so on. They had a 20-30-40 year study window. The simple task is to test our past predictions and know how far off we were. Looks like now, we are making dire predictions about 20-30-40 years from now, paying Al Bore big bucks and in 20-40 years we'll have a new hypothesis.
Prove that the earth being much much warmer in the time frame 40,000 to 60,000 years ago was not as warm as it is now, ironic cos they just proved it was 7-8 degrees warmer overall.
Prove that the ice age is not going to occour with a build up of ice in the poles and that suddenly flips to the equatorial plane. because there has been proof that the poles were once at what we now call the equator.
If I said in 1989 that in 20 years the GS500 will rule the world, and 2009 comes around and the GS500 is nearly dropped from the suzuki line up its such a POS, wont you be looking at all the other BS I say with a lot of skepticism. Same deal.
They seem to be theorising, taking in the profits, and moving on to the next theory. Sorta a ponzi scheme but with pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.
Cool.
Buddha.
i'm not going to say that the things we are doing don't affect our climate or anything like that. but the earth as a whole has it's own system, it's own...umm...how do i put it, ritual? does that fit? history repeats itself. the earth is constantly changing. always has. it goes through cycles. i'm not worried by it. really. just be happy to be alive. :cheers:
Quote from: jserio on February 20, 2009, 01:06:31 PM
i'm not going to say that the things we are doing don't affect our climate or anything like that. but the earth as a whole has it's own system, it's own...umm...how do i put it, ritual? does that fit? history repeats itself. the earth is constantly changing. always has. it goes through cycles. i'm not worried by it. really. just be happy to be alive. :cheers:
I agree, the earth is cyclic and we are just in a up swing of overall temps. Sure we haven't treated the planet great overall but in the large scheme of things the earth will balance itself out and since humans are only around for a short time we see it as a tramatic thing or an up and coming catastrophe!
But I'm really not to worried since it won't happen before I die :flipoff: :dunno_white: See the greatness of human's short life spans?
Thanks,
Nick
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 12:13:29 PM
OK OK, that set of points was good lawman, but I need to see 3-4 things - global warming has been around since the 70's.
Global warming has been around throughout the existence of the earth... look at planet Venus, for instance... The earth has cycles, the problem is that we are demonstrably speeding this one up.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 12:13:29 PM
There were many many models and many many predictions made then and through the 80's and through the 90's and so on. They had a 20-30-40 year study window. The simple task is to test our past predictions and know how far off we were. Looks like now, we are making dire predictions about 20-30-40 years from now, paying Al Bore big bucks and in 20-40 years we'll have a new hypothesis.
So your plan is "do nothing and hope it all works out"? Good plan there... Try that the next time you're crossing the street in front of a car, for instance...
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 12:13:29 PM
Prove that the earth being much much warmer in the time frame 40,000 to 60,000 years ago was not as warm as it is now, ironic cos they just proved it was 7-8 degrees warmer overall.
The earth goes in cycles. Again, we're just accelerating one. At one point Earth was a blasted rock with no atmosphere. Good luck riding your GS500 in THAT... Our existence, particularly as we know it, depends on a particular cllimate, which we're threatening. Until the Sun goes nova, the EARTH will be fine, but we might be screwed if the temperature changes by even a few degress.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 12:13:29 PM
Prove that the ice age is not going to occour with a build up of ice in the poles and that suddenly flips to the equatorial plane. because there has been proof that the poles were once at what we now call the equator.
The polar ice caps are shrinking at an alarming rate. We know that, and can measure it. That may cause an ice age, but do you really want an ice age?
the poles changed primarily because the earth's core is made of molten metal. Ever pour hot fudge? It doesn' stay where you put it. Neither does molten metal. The poles are cold not because they're the poles, but because they're tilted so they get less and less direct sunlight....
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 12:13:29 PM
If I said in 1989 that in 20 years the GS500 will rule the world, and 2009 comes around and the GS500 is nearly dropped from the suzuki line up its such a POS, wont you be looking at all the other BS I say with a lot of skepticism. Same deal.
If other people who know what they're talking about agree with the rest of your BS, and my continued existence may depend on that BS... NO, I wouldn't be skeptical. I would do things to reduce the risk.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 12:13:29 PM
They seem to be theorising, taking in the profits, and moving on to the next theory. Sorta a ponzi scheme but with pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo.
Yeah, and the earth is flat. And gravity is caused by invisible gnomes...
Lawman too many of your points are like self contradictory.
Polar ice caps shrinking will not cause an ice age. Polar caps getting thicker will cause an ice age. So global warming is preventing an Ice age. Score 1 for global warming. Heavy ice caps will want to spin to the outside in the rotation of the earth not be near the poles.
Global warming "the theory" has been round since the 70's not "global warming the phenomenon". The phenomenon has been around a few 1000 years. But it was definetly warmer 40K to 60K yrs ago. So why did it cool down, and why was it warmer, and when is it likely to do one or the other. Its a geologic question, not a weather question.
The 70's theories have definetly come to the stage where they can be studied and proven. Go ahead and do the required studies to see how much we missed it by so we know how accurate climate scientists are atleast were in the 70's and 80's. I am not saying we are going to do nothing. In fact that is what the new "global warming" theorists are saying. Or they are saying we theorise like this, then we pay the piper and then we move on to newer theories. I am just saying I would like to see a check list - we said this, its happened, then we said this, that missed by 50% because this other thing (like say a volcano over italy) we didn't know was going to happen, then there was this that we were so off, it went 100% opposite direction. Whatever. I want a Report card. Opposite of nothing. You send your kids to school, year over year, we got no clue what goes on in there. One fine day kids like 30 yrs old and we got no clue what he knows or not. How's that.
I get that 89 GS500 rule the earth BS, I am just a clown with or without a GS500. Who am I to theorise.
Flat earth, gravity gnomes and pay the Bore. Its all his thanks to doing. You owe him.
I was essentially saying these 3 things
The theories of old and new need to be caliberated before we get new theories sprouting out of the blue.
It needs to be proved that the ice age was either a myth, a mistake or we have averted that risk and are over correcting and we better stop.
And the 8 degree warmer earth will not happen anyway or the earth will reverse the 2 degrees we managed to warm when its next cycle starts.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 02:29:29 PM
Lawman too many of your points are like self contradictory.
Polar ice caps shrinking will not cause an ice age. Polar caps getting thicker will cause an ice age. So global warming is preventing an Ice age. Score 1 for global warming. Heavy ice caps will want to spin to the outside in the rotation of the earth not be near the poles.
Uh... no. Ice caps result and proceed from an ice age. The earth gets cold, you get ice. Not the other way around. Melting ice caps can cause ocean salinity changes that affect global weather patterns, which might foster an ice age. We've had micro ice ages over the last several thousand years like that.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 02:29:29 PM
Global warming "the theory" has been round since the 70's not "global warming the phenomenon". The phenomenon has been around a few 1000 years. But it was definetly warmer 40K to 60K yrs ago. So why did it cool down, and why was it warmer, and when is it likely to do one or the other. Its a geologic question, not a weather question.
It cooled down because of carbon consolidation. Carbon went into plants, and dinosaurs etc. When we burn those things, we let the carbon out. Carbon - generally carbon dioxide - traps heat.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 02:29:29 PM
The 70's theories have definetly come to the stage where they can be studied and proven. Go ahead and do the required studies to see how much we missed it by so we know how accurate climate scientists are atleast were in the 70's and 80's. I am not saying we are going to do nothing. In fact that is what the new "global warming" theorists are saying. Or they are saying we theorise like this, then we pay the piper and then we move on to newer theories. I am just saying I would like to see a check list - we said this, its happened, then we said this, that missed by 50% because this other thing (like say a volcano over italy) we didn't know was going to happen, then there was this that we were so off, it went 100% opposite direction. Whatever. I want a Report card. Opposite of nothing. You send your kids to school, year over year, we got no clue what goes on in there. One fine day kids like 30 yrs old and we got no clue what he knows or not. How's that.
I volunteer you...
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 02:29:29 PM
I was essentially saying these 3 things
The theories of old and new need to be caliberated before we get new theories sprouting out of the blue.
Why? the science behind the theories hasn't changed, only the assumptions about human progress have.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 02:29:29 PMIt needs to be proved that the ice age was either a myth, a mistake or we have averted that risk and are over correcting and we better stop.
Why? what is this ice age you're so keen on?
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 02:29:29 PM
And the 8 degree warmer earth will not happen anyway or the earth will reverse the 2 degrees we managed to warm when its next cycle starts.
the earth will warm by 8 degrees. The question is when. There's nothing we can do about it except speed or slow it.
it sure as hell isn't warming here by 8 degrees. average temp for december here was 19F...yeah, but we're warming..... :cookoo:
Ice age - The poles collect ice. The ice gets thicker and thicker. Now as it gets thicker it gets heavier. When it gets heavier and heavier, the laws of physics dictate that all of a sudden it will flip to orient the heaviest points to the outside. Put 2 heavy objects with glue on a pingpong ball and spin it. with the heavy points along the axis. It will in a few turns flip and point them to the outside. A very thick polar cap will give you that same thing. Shrink the caps and the ice age will not occour. However we may only need to like stall the temperature drop, we may be warming it 2 degrees in 500 years which could be catastrophic. Overdoing a good think can be just as bad.
40-60K years ago there was tons of vegetation. Think jurassic park. No reason to think that warming was because of burning those cos we didn't burn nothing. It was lush and green and had huge animals and plants and trees and was warm as hell. It cooled when the dinosaurs started to die off.
I volunteer me too, except it will require billions in funding plus lots of extra knowledge. And Al Bore could be disappointed with the results.
The science is unchanged and that is precisely why it needs to be re caliberated. Maybe we missed the assumptions. Maybe we said 10 million people will move to kansas and it will be very warm there, but instead they moved to seattle and that happened there. Caliberate the old theory, maybe the science is flawed, maybe the assumptions were flawed we wont ever know if we dont get these re caliberated. Now we have theories 30 years out. Every few years we repeat and Al Bore makes big $. That seems like a good way to make $, but not a good way to stop global warming.
Ice age - back to the top.
The earth may not warm by 8 degrees. We managed to warm it by 2, but we could have the earth cool back down and obliterate our 2 degree gain. We may also have the earth get even warmer. Nothing we may be able to do there. The earth could say, I see your 2 degrees and I raise you these 8. Your 2 will be irrelevant, or be completely reversed and more or what ever. We dont know if the earth is cooling or heating without man made global warming. So is it the tiny snow flake that causes an avalance, or is it farting when you hear thunder. No one knows, and no one seems to be looking into it.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 03:20:21 PM
Ice age - The poles collect ice. The ice gets thicker and thicker. Now as it gets thicker it gets heavier. When it gets heavier and heavier, the laws of physics dictate that all of a sudden it will flip to orient the heaviest points to the outside. Put 2 heavy objects with glue on a pingpong ball and spin it. with the heavy points along the axis. It will in a few turns flip and point them to the outside. A very thick polar cap will give you that same thing.
No, but kudos.
Even the thickest ice is lighter than water, except that containing anhydrous methane (which doesn't occur at the poles, as far as we know).
Even still, there's far more SiO2 than water on the planet, which is heavier. And the swirling molten iron around the core. Plus, orbit is simply a state of continuous falling. Altering the direction of spin, given the momentum of such a large mass falling continuously (and even given acceleration as it draws closer to the concentric center) is like trying to steer a train with a feather.
I believe you handed the other side a point by bringing up the prehistoric thing.
Geological studies have shown that CO2 levels were incredibly high "back in the day", causing the incredible amounts of vegetation. The atmosphere cooled as the O2 levels rose.
As far as a report card, all you have to do is look at the Greenland glaciers.
Check out what's happening over there, and let us know if the planet can accelerate that fast, on it's own. There's a Nobel prize in it for you, since the last guy proved the opposite.
I didn't say "the direction of orbit", by the way. I said the "direction of spin".
But, yes, there are studies being done to the contrary of the global warming assumption. Some of it is being funded by oil companies (who like to publicly uphold the abiogenic petroleum theory). They say that atmospheric carbon concentrations are powerful, but they're nearly meaningless when considering magnetic pole flip. It's been said that we're past due for a flip, and that the disturbances are causing regional warming. The theory can be upheld, but to do so publicly is to stir the pot even more. Not a good thing for the checkbook.
But either way, who the heck cares? :dunno_white:
I used to be really into it, but it gets depressing. My old PI did just get a $700k grant to turn hog waste into methanol, which I've missed out on. But, who cares?
It's not like we can (or will) do anything about it, either way. We're happily paying Shell and BP to rape and pillage and tell us that oil comes from stressed-out rocks beneath the earth's mantle, so we won't have to walk to the store like great-Grandpa. It doesn't matter what happens to the atmosphere and climate, really. We'll just keep plugging along like we always do.
Let's talk about medicine, instead? :D
:dunno_white:
OK
Ice is 94% the weight of water. However 10 miles of Ice sitting on top of land above mean sea level is very very heavy, its as heavy as get this, 9.4 miles of water. Easy to effect pole flip. Thicker and thicker ice caps did cause pole flip.
Sio2 - aka sand, is meaning less, it does not flow in large quantities from one spot to another.
I dunno about greenland glaciers accelerating, but Yes we are pumping Co2 by burning fossils, and we did add 20 ppm to the tally. Definetly give you that. But guess what else is happening. We are now 7.5 billion strong. We are very carboniferous. AKA, we have trapped carbon in our bodies as much as several million dinosaurs. We are digging up and burning the forests and dinosaurs of old, but guess what, in the days those things were growing, a sngle thunder clap would trigger forest fires that would burn several millions of sq miles releasing all our present day CO2 and more.
Now a days our forest fires barely go and burn a few acres.
We are cutting down the forests at an alarming rate which by itself contributes to a good bit of warming, but dont forget that that forest will never end up in the atmosphere as CO2, its trapped as wood in your house. In its place spme secondary forest grows and takes carbon out of the atmosphere.
Essentially I am not saying we're not creating global warming, and I am not even disputing Co2 is pollutant nor am I disputing that co2 = warming.
I am only doubting these 3.
1. How accurate are these predictions. And global warming businesses are perpetrating several of the same crimes the petro's are doing. And I want to see the correlation from prediction to actual results over the last 30 years.
2. If it is accurate can you prove that the earth is over powering us in one way or other. We do 2 and it does 10 or it does -10. makes no diff one way or another.
3. Are we not helping by thinning the ice cap to prevent pole flip, which less than 20 years ago was imminent as I remember it from class/news. So is that a myth, mistake or have we averted it and gone off the deep end in the opposite direction.
Arguing about global warming is futile. I am saying its warmer. No need to say that to me, I agree. Prove its not helpful, prove its not irrelevant, and prove that its as bad as its been predicted to be.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: lawman on February 20, 2009, 05:19:23 AM
Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Florida, which happened to have his brother as a governor, went to Bush only after boxes of votes were "found" late in the evening. My foreign friends, including those with dual citizenship, agree that the 2000 US election would not have been certified anywhere else on earth. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court, which has a majority of Republicans.
same thing has happened in the senate in minnesota. a bunch of votes were found that surprisingly were ALL democrat too., if this were the case in FLA it ocudl have been pushed forther. until i see proof, it to me is another CT any links other than WIKI?
oh no, conspiracy in politics? say it isn't so..... :cookoo:
Quote from: jserio on February 20, 2009, 08:53:22 PM
oh no, conspiracy in politics? say it isn't so..... :cookoo:
lol
Oh no, conspiracy theorists on gstwin ... say it aint so ...
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 07:33:07 PM
Thicker and thicker ice caps did cause pole flip.
Well, let's agree to disagree. I've never heard anything on this. Maybe you're right. :dunno_white:
Quote from: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 07:33:07 PM
I am only doubting these 3.
1. How accurate are these predictions. And global warming businesses are perpetrating several of the same crimes the petro's are doing. And I want to see the correlation from prediction to actual results over the last 30 years.
2. If it is accurate can you prove that the earth is over powering us in one way or other. We do 2 and it does 10 or it does -10. makes no diff one way or another.
3. Are we not helping by thinning the ice cap to prevent pole flip, which less than 20 years ago was imminent as I remember it from class/news. So is that a myth, mistake or have we averted it and gone off the deep end in the opposite direction.
1. That's why I'm saying "look at the Greenland glaciers". Or pretty much any glacier. I see where you're coming from, though, with Gore and the "green" movement (mostly being associated with the color of money, nowadays). There are changes that can be associated to global warming which can be disputed, but the glaciers (to me) are where the line is drawn. I don't consider myself very knowledgeable in the geological/meteorological sense, but I don't really know of anything that could melt (and accelerate the melting of) mile-wide sheets of ice all over the planet. That's just my personal point of view.
I like your reluctance to swallow everything the "Green" movement is trying to feed us, but I think the conspiracy theory about Gore is a little off. I hear the same arguments from my family, so I believe that you're just summing up your ideas on the matter (and thank you for that). But, his role in the matter is no different than anyone else finding a niche for themselves, except that he hasn't really done anyone any harm that I've seen. I may be wildly mistaken, but I haven't seen a box to check on my tax forms this year to support a new political Green Party. I've no doubt that he's making money hand over fist, and there are probably misappropriated funds running amok. But, this sort of thing happens everywhere in society. I think that it's good, at least, to have some sort of movement in the direction to clean up our collective "mess".
I'm sure you've heard this argument till your ears are almost bleeding, as have mine to the contrary. So, I understand exactly what you say, when you want definitive answers on the matter. I think we all do. I think we'd all like these things to be led differently.
2. I'm not sure if I want to see the answer to this question. Bad odds.
3. I haven't heard that explanation of pole flip. The last I heard, it was partly attributed to a polar shift in the planetary magnetic field as the outer core's currents and eddies change direction (or the flow pattern changes direction). My understanding of an ice age doesn't include ice sheets along the equator, which was what I thought you were explaining. I'd also like to know the answer to what you're asking. That's an interesting question. I'm not very confident that it would have an effect, personally. Maybe the changing pressure on the outer core could help cause flow-pattern changes? :dunno_white:
It's not impossible to tell if magnetic polar shift is underway and causing all the hubbub (and we're therefore wasting our cash on energy-star appliances). The last I heard, there were ongoing studies that mapped the changes in the field, including inclusions and temporary "mini-poles". I'm sure you've heard of it, too. According to the inter-tubes, I'm wrong anyway. Apparently I'm talking about geomagnetic reversal, whereas you're talking about actual physical pole-shift.
I know, those are pretty lame arguments. I've been out of the game for a while.
By the way, have you heard about the giant black holes that drive galactic spin? Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming... :icon_rolleyes:
:cheers:
Its not ice sheets along the equator, its a flip that caused the poles of yesterday to now be the equator and the poles to go through where the equator used to be. I think somewhere in the malay peninsula and the eastern South american area if I remember they once proved the poles used to be through there.
Global warming has thwarted pole shift, we keep it up and it will be well and truly thwarted.
Here is another one, about 15,000 years ago, guess what used to be in the bonneville salt flats. Yes lake, huge ass lake bed. Its supposed to have dried up due to global warming. So now, was it hotter after warming or was it still colder than now and we're making it far worse, and more importantly what made it warm enough to turn that lake into a race track.
Cool.
Buddha.
Quote from: wladziu on February 22, 2009, 02:24:22 PM
I know, those are pretty lame arguments. I've been out of the game for a while.
By the way, have you heard about the giant black holes that drive galactic spin? Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming... :icon_rolleyes:
:cheers:
yeah i have. hell if they are there, and doing this and eventually this planet gets sucked into one, NOTHIGN we can do about it :thumb:
I see what you mean. I vaguely recall hearing something to that effect a few years ago, then it kind of disappeared. At least, it disappeared from my 30 second attention span... :icon_rolleyes:
It IS interesting. You're saying that by melting the caps, we're preventing geomagnetic reversal (and it's why we've averted it thus far). That's a nice conjecture.
I was only aware that gm reversal had latitudinal preference, though they wondered around for a few thousand years before settling in place. I do remember something about those regions you're mentioning, and I remember it sounding crazy at the time. Seemed like a proposal that the planet would alter it's spin, and we'd be pimpin' across the sun like Uranus. Didn't hold up to Occam's razor to me.
I mean, I understand the "pressure-point" argument (for lack of better term). But, given the fluidity of the mantle, I can't see why any particular point would cause pressure through and into the outer core. Tectonic movement should account for some of that weight problem, and cushioning from the mantle itself. Any regional differences should be spread out like a wine glass on a Tempur-pedic. Then, given gravitational pull, all pressures should equalize as surface area diminishes around the outer core and friction (and tensional forces) increase among surrounding material. I believe that part of the study was trying to find the actual cause of the flow change in the outer core, not just the effect. I can't remember the outcome of the study (lucky me :icon_rolleyes:), but I believe it had more to do with fluid dynamic interactions between eddies along the main flow pattern.
That's a cool conjecture, though, I'll give you that. Haven't heard that one yet. And, if you're right, then awesome. I'll buy you a big-titted prostitute when we get proof.
Bonneville is cool, hunh? Lakes go dry everywhere, though. A professor once showed me a video of major lakes across North America popping up and shrinking away over a large period of time (which I can't remember). What's it called? Time-elapsed videography? Something like that. There's more at work than just temperature that dries up a lake, is my point. Lake effect winds, lack of humidity in the air (can't remember the correct term), feed source, blah blah blah. Plus, lakes are blue. Blue absorbs a lot of energy. It's part of the three pigments that help drive photosynthesis, for that reason. I'm sure that the color changed as the salinity concentration rose, but there's more at work than just heat.
According to an old geologist that taught me a few years ago, at least.
Not geo magnetic reversal. The thought prevailing at one point in time was that the ice age was caused by the present axis of rotation suddenly changing 90 degrees. Eastern Indian ocean and western atlantic ocean were the new poles. Ice caps stared to cover mexico, indonesia where a lot of vegetation and animals that were warm weather animals lived, and then and europe and siberia and antartica were suddenly the equator and were suddenly exposed to 100 degree day time temperatures. Polar bears and fat and furry animals lived there along with arctic plants. All gone. Man's ancestors at that time lived in africa. That was the defining moment in history apparently. Africa stayed warm cos the equator ran through it on both ocassions. The earth also spun slower. Its pretty much laws of physics. Spinning objects orient their heavy points to the outside, and if you start with several miles of ice in 2 spots, it will get shoved to the outside.
OK now on to some discredited theories that have not been pursued.
We have effected a 99% reduction in forest fires. In the last 300 or so years. Before that when there were thunderstorms whole entire forests will light up and go in smoke. AKA global warming with all the fire as well as CO2 into the air.
Apparently ~30 years ago they predicted the kirtland's warbler (small bird that lived in michigan) will go extinct. There was a michigan+ontario area where it lived and migrated, but they nested only in southern michigan and only in young Jack pine trees. That prevention of forest fires and the warming of the earth was supposed to drive these birds out of their habitat. Jack pine growns only after a forest fire apparently. Now they know it didn't go extinct but evidently the theory isn't being researched as to why and what. Maybe because the results will not please the green crowd.
We're cutting down trees, and locking them up in our houses and in our furniture. Of course we have de forestation and possibly loss of habitat of several animals, but we're really not burning these things, which used to happen with forest fires.
I seriously doubt we're doing any worse than at any time in history. Burning a forest will definetly be worse than a year of fuel use just for Co2.
In reality the amount of carbon in the earth is a constant. Trapped in people, plant and animal bodies, trapped in lime stone rocks, biogenic fuel deposits, trapped in various things its of little consequence, dump it into the atmosphere as Co2 and its a pollutant.
However think about it, all the dinosaurs and forests that were buried may have taken a bunch of carbon out of circulation. So we landed and adapted to an artificially cooler earth. But as we explode in population and we grow plants and animals for our feed stock eventually I dont believe we will leave much carbon left. If we leave a lot of carbon out of this system, we will have a far larger problem before the co2 turns into a problem.
Cool.
Buddha.
I think I'll stick with the opinion of 90+% of scientists, and not motorcycle experts on this topic.
... but the mental masturbation is fun...
waaaay too many words to read
That's interesting. But, first I have to dog you on this:
Quote from: The Buddha on February 23, 2009, 01:21:51 PM
So we landed
:confused:
Moving on...
That's interesting about the forest fires. I haven't given that a single thought. Are you putting these things together yourself, or hearing it from a radio critic? You'd make a nice bit of change if you had enough of this stuff to fill a few hundred pages, nowadays. Or, just a few more counterpoints and some rambling prose. The baby boomers would eat this stuff like Fiber-One.
I've never heard any hard comparative data on the difference in fire size or frequency, but I've never considered it much of a factor anyway. Given the amount of carbon-based fuel used since the Industrial Revolution and all. Granted, CO2 released in such a fire would be enormous, but just the amount of coal we're burning each day (or month, year, pick your duration) has got to be pretty comparable. But, even if you don't agree, there's also the fact that we're building on these levels constantly. Whereas, atmospheric CO2 levels from a prehistoric forest fire would be mitigated by over a long period of time by natural sequestering. That's the whole problem that Gore and everyone have been proposing.
No, I don't think burning a forest wouldn't come close to releasing the same amount of CO2 as coal, natural gas, benzene or diesel we're using for fuel in a year.
And, no, there's not going to be a "soylent green" issue with carbon availability. People like to say the same thing about aluminum, but we've only mined about 11% of it (more and more of which we're recycling, due to high overheads). Even though OctoMom is putting us on the brink.
In the old days if there was a fire, nearly no way it would be stopped. Also we will sequester it over a few centuries, but mind you we are doing the saqme thing with crops and people reproducing like bunnies. There is also a ton of carbon that has been pulled from the picture, as good as being buried by your house. Essentially think about this rationally and you'd see that much like the potable water equation the carbon is 0 sum.
Here is another thought - in the 30's a meteor crashed into tunguska in siberia, russia. That impact is likely to have hiked up the earth's temperature, permanently. So saying we made it rise 2 degrees in the last 150 years, probably has 75% of it due to that.
I am also about letting the scientists theorise and listen. However the scientists seem to be theorising and in a couple years theorising again. We have no caliberation to that hypothesis. I am not making all of this up, I listen and read various things and make up my own mind. The most glaring thing to me is that there has been a theory, its based on some assumptions, and its predited a certain course for the problem. How far off the course are we, how did we get that far out and is it a case of assumptions that weren't realised, or was the theory needing a modification.
Again I am not saying global warming isn't real or even man made or even relevant. I am not even discussing these things. What I am saying is, none of this has been studied and checked with what the earlier predictions were.
Once again if in 1989 Al Bore had said the GS 500 in 20 years will rule the world. And in 2009 you find that its about to be dumped by suzuki wont you get back to him and say ... you fool, listening to you I bought 400 GS500's From Al Bore's suzuki dealership, and now they are worthless. Somehow global warming is immune to that.
Cool.
Buddha.
Well, I see the idea of a "carbon pump" that you're mentioning. Carbon pulled from the air by the plants, then the plants to us, then back out. And, the null sum from that. Yes. But, it's the infrastructure that concerns me.
Now, I don't want to push it any further. Frankly, I don't trust you not to freak out. As far as I know, you might pull a RoadsterGal on me.
I respect your opinion and (more so) your ability to defend it, but I don't appreciate people that make @sses out of others in order to prove their point. And, I'll just leave it at that.
I didn't make an @ss of you or any one here did I.
Yes Al Gore - yes, but that's only because he's making money of the CO2 fear mongering, and he's creating mercury and many other pollutants in the name of avoiding mercury < oops should be co2.
In a way, I almost buy the theory that when all the dinosaurs (more like the first multi cell life was on earth) I think the earth was much much warmer. As carbon got into life forms, and eventually as they all got buried - burned is back into the air, burying is the only thing that will take them out of circulation, and fossillised, more of the carbon got out of circulation and the earth cooled, and that was the point at which we entered the picture. Now that we lived for so many years and we are getting that carbon out of the ground and pumping into the air ... we will just return the earth to where that 100% carbon was in circulation, maybe that means it will be 8-10-15 degrees warmer and it will be catastrophic for us.
I however still think there are more people trapping carbon in their body and plants and animals and other infrastructure that sustain us is still going to retain so much of the carbon we'd never go back to being as warm as it was when 100% carbon was in play. However 100% say = 20 degrees, we could releast 30% and get shafted with a 8-9 degree hike and end up with a world too warm to live in. Hence we all go extinct and soon enough the whole world goes back to being 100% carbon as forest fires and this and that take back the earth.
I just want the old theories to be re examined and proved/rejected and our forecasting needs refining.
Cool.
Buddha.
Alright. Let's see if you live up to your sobriquet.
I had to reread your last post a few times to understand what you meant. Guess I'm used to different terminology. But, it sounds like (more or less) that you've actually summed up what I and others are trying to explain. The 8-9 degree hike varies in magnitude depending on who's on the soapbox, but that 8 to 9 degrees is the entire problem.
That much difference could precipitate a global climate change for which we're not prepared as a species. As many variables that are at play, any type of acceleration of a particular process tends to spark interest in researchers. Yes, over-publication may occur, as some researchers tend to be attention-whores (it's a lonely life). The general public gets scared as the media blows up the story, and off we go!
But, re-examination is constantly underway. There are so many variables that a controlled study is evidently pretty difficult, leading to harsh criticism and words like "junk science".
We're living on the brink of a precipice in either direction, as a species, and maintaining equilibrium is essentially the focus. Some people believe that should happen naturally, and some think we should invest resources. Ironically, the "naturalists" feel that natural progress for humanity is to use available resources to promote and enhance human life. "The world is my oyster", and all of that. And, where there is irony, there is drama and debate.
So, the media's having a field day, making any agreement for particular decisions fairly impossible. This limits the ability to affect environmental impact to the contrary, making it difficult for researchers to make certain determinations. For instance, whether delta temperature can be deaccelerated (since temperature has become one of the pillars of our little chat).
Meanwhile, I'm backed up on physics homework, and my A&P notes are cold. I need to leave this stupid interweb alone for a while.
They are really not examining the theories of old, and checking the assumptions against the current facts and caliberating anything. They are saying its obsolete and making up new theories. I am yet to see anything that says, in 1970 we did this and assumed this and thought the outcome is this. This is where the assumption went off course, and this is our result. Have you seen any ... anyone else ?
There are other things they are not counting in.
If the sea level rises and it gets warmer, the humidity will rise. That in itself is not that much of an issue, but consider that most snow that occours happens at around freezing and a wee bit on either side, and it is between 5-10% water (I think even artificial snow is ~10-15% water) what will happen is that the snow around the world will get wetter and there will be more of it. A lot of times, weather is cold enough to snow, what is lacking is that there is not enough moisture to do so. So you'd have more wet soppy snow but a shorter winter and a warmer summer. It of course depends on the location in the world where you are. BTW we could have more hail and in general more rain.
While its a change, its not neccesarily a catastrophe.
BTW we will have to smartly change some things to postpone or avert a catastrophe. We cannot have fresh water which is in the on land ice caps and glaciers melt and run to the oceans. That will make them salty and rising sea levels will flood into land and rivers will be polluted with salt from the sea as the rivers now are taking in water from the ocean.
We may have to do an ice harvest and get that ice out of there especially on land. But that is more along the lines of managing the problem than averting it.
Cool.
Buddha.