Is Global Warming Behind Earth's Gravity Shifting? 96
MichaelH writes "The good folks at JPL along with the Royal Observatory of Belgium have an explanation for the recent changes in Earth's magnetic field: the melting of sub-polar glaciers causing a mass shift towards the equator. Starting in 1997, a noticeable change in Earth's gravitational field was observed; Earth was beginning to develop a 'bulging waistline.' Sounds like it's time for a diet with fewer greenhouse gases...."
Evaporation (Score:1)
Re:Evaporation (Score:1)
Reading jpl.nasa.gov is refreshing (Score:4, Interesting)
Earlier, I had read a cnn blurb about global warming which contained no useful information. Finally, the whole global warming thing is explained [cnn.com]:
Natural variability may be behind the changes, but human activity might also be to blame, scientists said.
That's what I call "pinning it down"!
Consider the following... (Score:2)
Another article on space.com stated that:"The instruments will sense a difference in position of one micron, or about one-fiftieth the width of a human hair."
For a bit of perspective you'll need to consider that the radius of the Earth at the equator is about 6.378 x 10^8 cm or 6.378 x 10^9 mm. So the fluctuation in the Earth's radius is something like one part in a billion.
+1 Insightful on the MQR standard (Score:4, Insightful)
So that's what happens when we come out of an Ice Age...
It's amazing how often this point is convieniently ignored.
-- MarkusQ
Re:+1 Insightful on the MQR standard (Score:2)
Re:+1 Insightful on the MQR standard (Score:2)
Re:+1 Insightful on the MQR standard (Score:2)
I don't think so (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I don't think so (Score:1)
Bring on the carbon dioxide eating genetically engineered microbes.
What? You mean like algae?
Re:I don't think so (Score:1)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps .... (Score:1)
Perhaps the gravity shift is behind global warming.
Eh? Didn't think of that one did you?
Re:Perhaps .... (Score:2)
People in America are getting fatter. The Earth is warming. Because people are fatter, the Earth is warming!
Re:Perhaps .... (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps .... (Score:2)
Say no to Taco Bell and White Castle, save the world.
Yes it is. (Score:2, Funny)
The 2000 Election trouble
UFO's
Martians
Smurfs
HAPPY FUN BALL
Neelix
The price of gold and vodka
Hell. No one really know.
This get posted but this news does not
"An international team researching particle physics at Tohoku University has observed a new kind of neutrino--one of the building blocks of the universe--and almost certainly confirmed that the particles have mass, it was learned Tuesday."
I AM AN IDIOT (Score:2)
Watch it (Score:2, Funny)
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!
Warning: Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin.
Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:5, Insightful)
I *love* it when people postulate that humans are the cause for 'global warming'. It's been shown that
But it has never been proven that human activity of any form did cause, (or could stop) the climate change everyone seems so keen to label global warming.
News flash: Global warming itself is still theory. It has some amount of scientific evidence behind it, but some against as well. This is to say nothing about the theory of human dynamics on climate.
What is happening, however, is there are groups out there who believe that until we know for certian that we are the problem, we should assume we are and stop what we can. These people are called extremists or fanatics.
I do not deny that the planet is changing, and likely it is due in part to human life. But it would be just as irresponsible for us to run in and fix something we don't understand (and may well not be 'broken') as it would to wontonly destroy our atmosphere (which is what some are claiming we do).
Yes, yes, let's reduce our pollution. I, as well as many others reading this, have mild but chronic asthma. Sure, I'd like to breathe cleaner air and know that I won't get as ill as frequently as I currently do.
Let's just not become couriers of FUD in the process.
-Adam
If it ain't broke, fix it 'till it is.
Earth First! (we'll strip mine the other planets later)
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2)
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:1)
Earth is getting warmer, humans launch chemical that makes the the Earth warmer.
So humans aren't even a tiny little bit responsible?
You mean humans aren't responsible for Earth or we didn't:
1) Cut any trees;
2) Launched chemical at the atmosphere;
Sure. Earth would be warming if we didn't existed.
News Flash
But We Do !!!
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to science, where everything is theory, even the stuff we call "law".
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were to go about a risk and cost/benefit analysis as rationally as possible, we'd have to acknowledge that there's a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the side of the equation involving the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We do know that it will cost something, and we know an approximate range, and we know that that cost can be translated into other tangible things, like money diverted from reducing non-greenhouse pollutants that cause disease.
For the sake of the argument, let's invent a fictional economic unit, the "fubar". Let's assume that the cost of eliminating 80% of the production of greenhouse gases is somewhere between 50 and 100 fubars. (Note that I use an 80% reduction amount to imply what is almost certainly true--that approaching 100% reduction would have the cost increase astronomically.)
Now we'll ask what is the cost of not reducing greenhouse emissions.
Since we don't know if we're responsible for global warming at all, we have to place the lower limit of the cost of not reducing emission at zero fubars. But what's the upper limit?
The point here is that the upper limit is very, very high compared to the upper limit of the cost of reducing the greenhouse emissions. I don't really know what the magnitudes are, but I'll guess for the sake of the argument that it's nearly 1000 fubars. And that could be low. Maybe it's 10,000 fubars.
Your point is that the lower limit is zero and that spending 100 fubars on reducing greenhouse emissions is irresponsible. But that's true only if the cost of not doing so is actually zero. Your default assumption that it's zero is clearly also irresposible. It may be zero, but it may not be. And if it isn't, it's not likely to be 10 or 100, it's likely to be 1000 or 10,000.
How much in possible financial winnings would it take for you to play a single round of Russian Roulette? (Say that if you don't shoot yourself, you get X amoung of money.) I ask because it's not certain that you'll shoot yourself in the head. Lest you try to argue this point on the basis of causation, it's also not certain whether there is a causal relationship between you pulling that trigger one time and a bullet being fired into your brain.
So, since there's a prety good chance that there will be no bullet fired when you pull the trigger, will you do it for a dollar? Or ten? Or a thousand? Or, more likely, a million?
Not spending money on reducing greenhouse emissions is like getting that dollar (or ten) in the Russian Roulette example. If the magnitude of the risk is so large compared to the benefit of not trying to avoid the risk, then it is clearly foolish to fail to avoid the risk, even when it is an uncertain risk. In fact, part of my point here is that the certainty (or lack thereof) of the risk makes no qualitative difference. It just means that the lower value of the range of the risk magnitude is zero. It doesn't mean that this is a special case where it's rational to defer making any judgment at all.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2)
So the magnitude of the risk (global warming) needs to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk of the 'solution' (huge overwhelming world-level mandates on what people are allowed to do).
There are people out there (some can be characterized as armchair megalomanics) for whom issues like 'global warming' are an excellent excuse to campaign for what they're really after.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:1)
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:1)
This isn't in the interest of the people living in these countries, they have to breathe and live in their environment. The 'short cut' they're taking to prosperity is cheap dirty expansion. Giving more local control to the people in these countries will grant power to the people who have a direct interest in promoting cleaner alternatives.
Spending millions at an international level yammering about the problem in big task groups doesn't solve the problem at all. Unless you're a big-worlder and want to force people in other countries to 'clean up, or else.' Which has frightening appeal to certain forces who claim they are 'progressive.'
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2)
A series of international level agreements lead to something being done, and now inital indications are that the hole in the ozone is starting to shrink.
Meanwhile the industry lobby groups, and variously ideologues bitched and moaned, and ended up with egg on their faces.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:1)
Today, tighter emmissions standards, tommorow.. the world!
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:1)
Everybody's got their theory about what little tweak they need to do that will fix the whole world. We don't need any one entity having that power, thankyou.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the other side of the coin has this story to tell:
You are present in a room with dozens of walls. A few, at the top, have escapes which you can't see from the bottom. You have one ladder, but it'll take you hours to climb a wall and find out if it's the right one (you have no food or water).
You have a series of clues, and things become more apparent the more you study each wall.
Your above theory says, "Let's climb the first wall that seems the most likely." But what you may find out is that you spent several hours climbing a wall that is wrong. You've squandered your time, effort and money. And now you get to go back down and try again.
Are you as likely to jump up the next wall, or study it out this time? You've already lost several hours, and you feel as though your time is coming to a close. It is rational to defer spending resources on an unknown.
It's not perfect, we have several people studying all the available clues, but you shouldn't be throwing all your effort into one ladder when you don't even know if it's going to help. The probability that our emissions is *causing* or *accelerating* global warming has such a large range right now.
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be crying wolf until we identify the enemy. It is smart to make wise investments in clean air. To leave only footprints, and take only pictures so to speak. It is unwise to run around claiming that we know what's wrong, and that if we don't change we will be in a poor state later.
-Adam
I cry wolf (Score:2)
So, I say, "well, shit, I'd better do something about it". Now, if it's not a wolf, I've just wasted time and effort, but there was SOMETHING THERE. (take that, you false analogy)
In this case there is a possibility that we are causing this problem, the solution is not (most likely) cost prohibitive, and has other fringe benifits. And by god, if the US federal government can make claims about unseen, unproven dangers to drum up support for their policies, so can I.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2)
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:1, Flamebait)
So is Relativity, or Darwinian evolution. This does not help your argument, you imbecile.
It has some amount of scientific evidence behind it, but some against as well
As does almost any area of study in science, from cold fusion to ESP. But the great majority of evidence is behind it.
until we know for certian that we are the problem, we should assume we are
An analogy: you are trapped in a bank vault with ten other people. You don't know whether the vault is airtight or not. The other ten people think it may well be, on the balance of probability, so decide to conserve air. You, on the other hand, want this to be proved for "certian" before you change your behaviour so you light up a great big cigar.
These people are called extremists or fanatics
I assume this statement means you are a troll - the vast majority of the world's scientists accept that global warming is a serious problem and to a significant extent caused by human activity. Well, you have to laugh...
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:4, Interesting)
IM(no)HO, this is a flawed analogy on many levels. The general public has more knowledge (read:only a very little) about the average bank vault than the average climate scientist has about climate change through the centuries, nevermind millenia.
I'd like to see a poll of 'the vast majority of the world's scientists' before I take that statment at anything more than '4 out of 5 dentist recommend x brand. Sure, global warming looks like it could be a problem, and it's possible that human activity affects it in a grander scale than the butterfly on japan affects the climate in florida. It's easy to postulate possibilities.
We can predict weather based on patterns, but we still can't predict it based on causes other than other weather. We know, for instance, that in the northern hemisphere after several months of generally warm and hot weather it will then have several months of generally cool and cold weather. This is a generic weather cycle. We can't predict on any more of a minute scale other than observing what weather is already happening and what has happened with that kind of weather before (ie, clouds over chicago generally mean there will be clouds over michigan soon, and depending on the type of cloud may or may not dump water, etc)
What global warming used to be was "The world is getting warmer, why is that?" Now we're finally to the part that scientists are seeing patterns in geological history where such large scale changes occured, in concert with other large changes (magnetosphere, etc). It will likely be found out that this is another, extremely long, cycle we are moving around in that we are only now discovering (in the past 100 years) because only now have we had the record correlating ability to do so.
Again, I'm not saying it's untrue that humans are affecting global climate change (I'm sure we are) but the level and amount of change caused by us is what's in play here.
What irks me is that people are using it as a crutch for pollution change. If pollution change is a good thing, it should be able to stand on what we know it causes right now, rather than on the possible future eventuallities.
Global warming is not a crutch to be used to prop up environmental change. I believe in passing environmentally sensible policy, but if people keep putting global warming out as the reason for these regulations, then when global warming is found to be a natural cycle in the earth, environmental policy will fall on its rear end and won't be able to get up by itself for another decade or two, even when it's also shown that we may be accelerating the change.
-Adam
If having a strong, well defined opinion is trolling, then put me under a bridge with a toll box.
About extremists or fanatics: The world needs them, there is a place for them in society. They shouldn't be offended by being called extremists or fanatics - they intend to pull us in a direction by representing a view that is so far from reality that soon the general public doesn't view the center as unnatural, since there are views that are far stronger. This gentle tugging and pulling is needed to affect change.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:3, Insightful)
So is Relativity, or Darwinian evolution. This does not help your argument, you imbecile.
His point did a nice job of helping his argument. He mentioned that human caused global warming is far from being proven. Therefore, we shouldn't jump on the stop-global-warming-bandwagon blindly. Instead, we should instead give it careful study, and weigh out future consequences of our actions.
As does almost any area of study in science, from cold fusion to ESP. But the great majority of evidence is behind it.
What the hell? Where did you get this "great majority of evidence" supporting human caused global warming? The Sierra Club of San Fransisco? This issue is FAR from reaching any conclusions, as this site [stats.org] explains quite well.
An analogy: you are trapped in a bank vault with ten other people...the vault is airtight...blah blah blah...so you light up a great big cigar.
I'll let that analogy speak for itself.
the vast majority of the world's scientists accept that global warming is a serious problem and to a significant extent caused by human activity
Have you ever spent any time reading scientific journals on global warming? Or do you get your information from quick, eight paragraph articles from the New York Times?
Your post shows that you have a good understanding of political debates, but a terrible understanding of the current state of science. One good way to fix this problem is by impartially and properly researching complicated issues like this in the future. Then you can back up your ideas without sounding like a complete idiot.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:3, Informative)
The vast majority of climatical scientists support the theory that humans are contributing to global warming. As an example, this [grida.no] links to an IPCC report into the science behind global warming. As you can see, the author [grida.no] and reviewer [grida.no] list is very large. On the otherhand, the number of greenhouse skeptics who actively research in the area is quite low. One doesn't even need to take one's shoe's off to count them.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2)
The tone of that posters article expressed a conclusive viewpoint. The poster claimed that the vast majority accepted global warming is signifcantly caused by human impact. This thought helped express the poster's main idea that somehow the global warming debate has has pretty much been decided and all conclusions have been reached...and man is almost completely at fault.
That's what bugged me...conclusions haven't been reached. The IPCC scientists know this too...they know full well the uncertainty and problems in their climate models, and recommend better models for future testing. There are very few scientists who believe that conclusions have been reached.
On the other hand, the tone of your post was much more cautious and moderate (and rightly so). You were right when the vast majority of scientists support the theory that humans are contrubting to global warming. Of course nearly everyone supports that position. But to what degree are humans to blame? Nobody is sure...again no conclusions have been reached.
Who's right in the global warming mess? We can't tell. The IPCC reports are a big step in the right direction (despite its integrity problems due to both Volume's Summary for Policy Makers making conclusions the report didn't reach). Personally, I'm a watchful fence-sitter on the global warming debate. I just didn't enjoy the opinion of this poster, who placed current research aside and instead expressed the idea that scientists have virtually settled this issue.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2)
Therefore, we shouldn't jump on the stop-global-warming-bandwagon blindly. Instead, we should instead give it careful study, and weigh out future consequences of our actions.
Fair enough. But that wasn't what the orginal poster was suggesting. S/He said until we know for certian[sic] we shouldn't do anything about the situation.
I'll let that analogy speak for itself.
Well I'm happy for it to. I was quite pleased with it: it shows the relative costs of a false positive and a false negative.
conclusions haven't been reached...recommend better models for future testing
Granted, but that will always be the case. The evidence so far supports the theory.
Your post shows that you have a good understanding of political debates, but a terrible understanding of the current state of science
Thanks for the compliment (a new one for me!) but I have to say I do understand the scientific process. I take part in it even. Admittedly I don't have any specialist knowledge about chemistry/climatology but I'm not the one contradicting the people who do.
Personally, I'm a watchful fence-sitter on the global warming debate
If I don't know enough about a subject, I'll go along with the experts - particularly when there is such a strong consensus. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know better than the people who are studying it. A little skepticism is good, of course, but when the evidence is there it makes sense to moderate our actions accordingly; however, the original poster called this the policy of extremists or fanatics.
Who's right in the global warming mess? We can't tell
Balance of evidence.
Re:Let's define 'theory', shall we? (Score:2)
You suck!!!!
Heh heh heh.. =)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So now we've just managed to clean up our air to the point where Los Angeles and Toronto no longer have pollution advisories on the Weather Channel, but Rio de Janerio and Amersterdam are flooded.
Well, we've just done one very good thing, and the other thing was expected anyway and didn't happen overnight, so it's not like we had to rush a huge evacuation or anything. Maybe we've just built better dikes instead.
If we *don't* do these things, then Los Angeles and Toronto will have even lower air quality *and* Rio and Amsterdam will be flooded too.
But what of the costs! They'll be enormous! Well, that's what they said about replacing CFC's, eliminating particulate waste from coal power plants, and not using PCB's to cool big electrical transformers. Oddly enough, coal power plants are now selling that particulate waste as a replacement for gypsum in fire-resistant wallboard, the extra cost of not using CFC's in your car's air conditioner is about $20, not $1500, and your electric utility is now spouting on about how good and wonderful they are for not using PCB's in your friendly neighbourhood power transformer (despite the fact that the government had to force them to do so).
Even better is the fact that we can reduce our current CO2 production just by not wasting our fuel! Are we so wealthy that we don't have to worry about how much we spend on fuel, but not wealthy enough to not use it so much? There was one company here in Canada that went to parliament saying that "hey, this Kyoto thing isn't so hard. We met those goals already and look at the millions of dollars we saved!"
By forcing people to look at the problem, we can start to find solutions. A large part of the problem here is waste. Waste is bad because its a sign of inefficiency. Why can't some people realize that when it's so blazingly obvious?
you are pretending that the earth is flat (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. CO2 emissions do cause increases in average global temperature; that is elementary physics. The only question is the degree and when those increases will lead to catastrophes. But increases and catastrophes will inevitably result sooner or later if emissions continue at current levels or grow.
But it would be just as irresponsible for us to run in and fix something we don't understand (and may well not be 'broken') as it would to wontonly destroy our atmosphere (which is what some are claiming we do).
Quite to the contrary: the only responsible thing to do is to greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Not only does that address issues of global warming as best we can, in developed nations like ours, it is also good for the economy, for defense, and for quality of life. The only groups who don't benefit are entrenched interests afraid of change.
In fact, it was completely irresponsible to start such massive changes on a global scale in the first place, initiated by what amounts to a very small group of people, with no oversight and no democratic input from most of the affected populations.
Let's just not become couriers of FUD in the process.
Given the global and irreversible nature of these changes, fear, uncertainty, and doubt are completely justified.
What I find particularly ironic about the bogus arguments you are repeating is that they often come from the same people that formulate our drug policy on tenuous or disreputable scientific evidence. Apparently, it's not OK for me to voluntary inhale or ingest substances that only affect me and have never been demonstrated to be harmful. But it's perfectly OK for big companies to emit substances that I can't escape from and that the scientific mainstream pretty much agrees are going to have deleterious effects on people and the world.
So how'd that get a +5 Insightful? (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, nice of you to admit this. Let's add one more thing science can give you: some numbers.
CO2 records go back thousands of years from Greenland ice core data; since the industrial revolution began the era of massive human use of carbon-based fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have already risen 30% [epa.gov], methane concentrations doubled, and nitrogen oxides up 15%. All these chemicals are known to trap heat.
People have been modeling this year after year for decades with relatively consistent results - a warming on the order of a few degrees C by 2050, much greater warming at the poles than at the equator, increased intensity of storms and other severe weather.
None of the models see global cooling as a result any more, although regional cooling of one sort or another is possible with changing ocean circulation patterns. If the effect is always warming, whether 1 degree or 10, no matter what the model, you can safely conclude that the added human chemicals do force a general warming of the planet with a value somewhere in that range.
The scale of what we have been seeing, from around the world, over the past decade, is alarmingly very much in line with the model predictions. Global temperatures are already up 0.5 degrees C, and even this small temperature rise seems to have had dramatic effects.
Does this prove that human activity has caused global climate change? Science never conclusively proves anything - results are always open to further question. But for policymakers not blinded by the continuing obfuscation from the oil companies and their toadies, the conclusion is rather inescapable. Humans have clearly increased gases that are clearly known to trap heat, and the climate has already seen warming over the past century.
Why aren't we doing more about it? Look at what the Europeans are doing to meet Kyoto targets: massive investment in wind farms, for example. Why isn't that happening in the US? Why has average US automotive fuel economy gown down in recent years, not up? Would reduction of oil use really be such a bad thing??? Only for the oil companies who are currently running the US government...
We are so utterly dependent on oil that we have to kow-tow to the arrogant Saudi's and similar despots around the world who control so much of the world's oil resources - or, in current circumstances, go to war. Improved automotive fuel economy by just a few percent would return far more oil than the disputed ANWR drilling area. But the US Congress the last two years has rejected all attempts to re-instate the fuel economy standards and apply them across the board.
There are alternatives, but the current US government refuses to invest in them - Energy department programs in renewables and fusion energy have been cut year after year. The research dollars required are considerably less than, for example, the billions California lost in last year's energy debacle, but we refuse to make that investment.
What about the possibility that the world will warm and climate will change whether or not we do anything about our CO2 production? First, admitting that humans can have an impact on global climate should give us the confidence to know we can also impact it for the good, as well as for bad. Contrary to your impression that we don't understand climate, we do understand it well enough to know the effect of some changes we could make. Large-scale geo-engineering to mitigate natural climate change is certainly a possibility.
But in the long run, Earth has managed pretty well on its own and our policy probably should be one of neutrality rather than hands-on management: movement of industrial activity into space (as your tag line indirectly suggests) may well be the best long-term option for the planet. But we're not quite ready for that yet (although that's another area where I believe US R&D investment has been much less than it could have been).
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Great!
hmmm... (Score:1)
Re:hmmm... (Score:1)
Plus, I'd thinkglobal warming would be more likely a result of increased plate tectonics rather than human pollution. Increased activity around subduction zones leads to increased arc volcanism. The amount of greenhouse gases released by a single volcanic eruption puts all our greenhouse emissions to shame.
I'm not condoning unregulated pollution (polluting is bad for OUR health even if it has little effect on the climate at large), but I'd like to see some experimental proof before they start with this crap of "global warming causes this, that, and the other." The statistical studies they've done just show correlations, not cause and effect. I suspect that a shift in magnetic polarity is causing an increase in the rate of subduction at plate boundaries AND is altering the gravitational field. The increased activity at subduction zones contributes to volcanism, which results in global warming. Yes, increased global temperature and the change in gravity is connected, but not by a direct cause and effect relationship.
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
The amount of greenhouse gases released by a single volcanic eruption puts all our greenhouse emissions to shame.
Human's cause approx. 150 times the amount of CO2 to be released each year as volcanos. (Link [nodak.edu])
Re:hmmm... (Score:1)
I'm not saying we don't pollute....we definitely DO pollute. I'm also not saying this pollution is destructive to the environment....it certainly is. However, I doubt very much that we're to blame for the entirety of global warming. Considering that the sea level is a good deal lower than average of the Cenozoic (Florida's been entirely submerged until quite recently...just in time for the 2000 election, I might add) it would seem more likely that instead of global "warming" we might instead be seeing the earth returning to an equilibrium temperature.
And for scientific purity's sake, I ask that you don't refer to my postulations as theory, even sarcastically. I get easily frustrated by people throwing around the term "theory"...I guess it's an irrational pet peeve of mine.
day-length shift? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't this cause the earth's rotation to slow down? (spinning in the chair experiment). With super-accurate GPS and atomic clocks, I would think this would be measureable.
-metric
It would, BUT (Score:2)
Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:2)
So, where is the trending data over a few thousand years saying that man and his theorized greenhouse gases are heating things up? From the trending data that exists, its about time we have another serious cold snap... the kind where you have an ice age.. Hell... It's cold outside right now.
Was there not an artical a few weeks ago, about how they think the polls are going to shift soon... because historically.... its about that time... and the poles are weakening?
Ya know... I know this is not politically correct, but life is not, nor can it ever be politically correct. All this PC belief in global warming boils down to the brain washing of children in schools for the express purpose of slowly dictating every person's life by laws to protect "the enviroment". Hell, In the second paragraph of that "expanation", they say that the teams whole purpose was to find a "climatic reason" for the change in magnetic field.
Remember all the "don't cut down the rain forests, we will die if you do" shit? Did they ever shut up when studies came out that said that really, they only provide about 15% of the oxygen in our atmosphere.... and that 75% of it is done by microbes in the ocean? Jee Wiz Bat Man.
Yo, Slashdot editors, please loose the P.C. Crap.
So... If somebody ever proves with real evidence, and trending, that these greenhouse gases are the culperate for ALL our problems... what are we going to do about those pesky things called volcanos? Tell them that they can't spew millions of tons of greenhouse gases?
Shit... why don't we just move to Mars.... I will gladly take the cause of earth's naturally generating greenhouse gases... It will allow mars to be reborn... oh.. its the core of the planet.
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:4, Informative)
Reconstructed climate data from the last 1000 years can be found here [grida.no].
So... If somebody ever proves with real evidence, and trending, that these greenhouse gases are the culperate for ALL our problems...
Nobody has ever claimed that greenhouse gases are resonible for all of our problems.
what are we going to do about those pesky things called volcanos? Tell them that they can't spew millions of tons of greenhouse gases?
Nothing, we evolved with volcanos, and their effect on the earth's climate. It's when we started pumping in extra greenhouses gaes, over and above what volcanos contribute, that problems occur.
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:1)
Oh my god, you're right.
Thousands of people with PhDs, who have spent the past decade or more studying climate change, have just slapped their collective forehead. They forgot about the natural pattern!
Billions of dollars, millions of hours of research, consultation, theory, and measurements - are now down the drain.
Thank you, lwolenczak. I personally know several atmospheric scientists who plan to immediately implement a research program based on your insights.
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:3, Interesting)
Read Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' or any number of other books on the philosphy of science.
No, 'thousands of PhDs' doesn't automatically impress us. They have their grant funding to think of, and if there isn't an emergency how will they fund the new lab benches?
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:2, Flamebait)
I guess that all ideologues really do think the same.
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:1)
Believe me, many creationists, flat earthers, and crystal lovers have no idea of the definition of the term 'scientist' in the first place. Hell, lots of 'science teachers' teach little or no science to their unsuspecting secondary school pupils.
And needless to say, many 'scientists' are really just people who nestled into a campus bureacracy because they didn't want to go out into that big scary real world. The number of people who've taken a 'Philosophy of Science' course taught by a real philosophy professor is tiny.
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:2)
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:1)
You're using big, generalizing terms like 'at a fundamental level' 'there is no difference', etc. etc. That's not even bad science. It's just bad logic.
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:2)
Of course skepticism is part of the scientific method, however, dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your ideology without a shred of evidence isn't skepticism. This applies to both the creationist and the climate skeptic.
You're using big, generalizing terms like 'at a fundamental level' 'there is no difference', etc. etc. That's not even bad science. It's just bad logic.
What part of my posts had to do with science (bad or otherwise)? Pointing out the similarities in arguements between creationists, climate skeptics, crystal lovers, and whateverother peusdoscientific jokes are floating around out there isn't science. It was a simple observation, but one that unless you can supply evidence to support your claims, stands.
Re:Is this from Trending of the past? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is debatable to what degree the current, measurable increases in global temperatures are due to human emissions of greenhouse gasses.
It is absolutely not debatable that human emissions of greenhouse gasses will lead to serious and costly problems sooner or later--that is just basic physics.
Yo, Slashdot editors, please loose the P.C. Crap.
When you don't like or understand the scientific realities, you just accuse people of political bias. Sadly, that's how a lot of political decision making happens in the US today.
here's my question... (Score:1)
Why don't they put the research grants toward something a little more important like earth quake prediction since they're dealing with the shifts in land mass and flowing mantle...
I'm fond of science... but wasting all that money on monitoring tiny shifts in the earth's gravitational field and trying to blame global warming?? Come on...
Re:here's my question... (Score:1)
(Is are race truely
What's up with that picture? (Score:3, Interesting)
Realistically, the shift much be vanishing fractions of a percent, and you wouldn't be able to find a difference between the two Earths ("pre-bulge" and "post-bulge"), even in principle, on a low-resolution picture like that; the effects they are talking about would be sub-pixel, to say the least.
I'd do the math, but there aren't any numbers in the linked text and it's too late to go out and try to find them. (Perhaps someone else will... I'll lay my money down on, ohhh, within an order of magnitude of "one ten-millionth of a pixel difference" between pre- and post-bulge Earth.)
Let the French verify this (Score:1)
Re:Let the French verify this (Score:1)
Actually, since 1984, a meter is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,762,458ths of a second.
But thanks for playing
Re:Let the French verify this (Score:2, Informative)
And thank you for playing too!
Get your forces straight (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey (Score:2)
I still don't see any mention of how gravity is being affected by global warming.....
what's the deal?
Oblateness defined? (Score:1)
Anyways, think of how much more real estate we'll have in the tropics if we continue to expand the equator. Let's all drive hummers!
Science != Religon (Score:2)
The rebound of the earths mantle is meant to take thousands of years, but this effect is evident in less than 50?
What is the mass of the earth? I doubt this amount of water is 1% of 1% of the earths mass.
How much oil have we dug out from the earths crust? Is it close to the mass of the water?
From reading the article it sounds like they had a tehory, went searching for a reason and then massaged the facts to fit their theory.
Polar shifts, arks? (Score:1)
Also it seems quite intimidating to me that these glaciers are melting. I wonder how far they will go before they stop melting and which cities, countries, etc would be "covered" in water etc, as we've already seen flood damage in europe. Not to mention, how does this affect fault lines? I know theres something wrong there *shakes finger like crotchety old man*. I saw "A view to a kill".
Quick, lets all prepare for an apocalypse! :)
N
PS: damn, I knew I should have paid more attention to Waterworld.
almost makes some sense (Score:2)