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?   

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?   

 
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: The Buddha on February 20, 2009, 07:33:07 PM
Arguing about global warming is futile.

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.....   

Quote from: jserio on February 20, 2009, 08:53:22 PM
oh no, conspiracy in politics? say it isn't so.....   

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.   

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?   
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...

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...

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 

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...
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  ), 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