Five New Climate Reports

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Here is another possibility .... from NASA ...

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth

from the article:

Around the year 2000, Earth's spin axis took an abrupt turn toward the east and is now drifting almost twice as fast as before, at a rate of almost 7 inches (17 centimeters) a year. "It's no longer moving toward Hudson Bay, but instead toward the British Isles," said Adhikari. "That's a massive swing." Adhikari and Ivins set out to explain this unexpected change.

Scientists have suggested that the loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctica's rapidly melting ice sheet could be causing the eastward shift of the spin axis.
Who would have thought a 37 foot wobble would cause MORE sunlight to hit the upper latitudes and warm that area of the earth.

This spinning top we inhabit IS the major player in the changing climate.

Oh Occam, are you present and accounted for?
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,220
Here is another possibility .... from NASA ...

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-study-solves-two-mysteries-about-wobbling-earth

from the article:



Who would have thought a 37 foot wobble would cause MORE sunlight to hit the upper latitudes and warm that area of the earth.

This spinning top we inhabit IS the major player in the changing climate.

Oh Occam, are you present and accounted for?
Wow... if it weren't for the Nasa reference, I'd dismissed it as baloney ... very interesting, thanks for posting
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
Yes, the hypothesis that mankind is making enough CO2 to alter our climate is still a reasonable hypothesis. The only reason for skeptics to speak up is because of the unreasonable hype from the other side.

If reducing CO2 emissions was free, even a skeptic could support reducing emissions. Why wouldn't you? But it's not free, and in fact is very expensive. Crippling the global economy will hurt the rich nations, but it's the poor nations that will really feel it. It will literally come down to life or death at the margins.

So the question becomes, how much are we willing to spend? Or, how many are we willing to kill? It's not a given that reducing emissions will matter. It's not a given that warming is all bad. All that is given is that it will be more expensive to live on this planet. When you increase the tax on life, there will be less of it.
The problem s there's far far more to it than just that.

The majority of the poor countries have very little or limited export value to the more wealthier countries and thus blocking them from exporting to a few upper end countries because they don't meet a greenie code does little to them.

What is does do however is open things up so that, if they wish to, they can run full tilt unrestricted in building up their countries to match the developed ones because they have little to no high cost highly restrictive self imposed restrictions on how they do what they do Vs the developed countries who due to their own self sanctioning over questionably real and or valid environmental concerns keep themselves locked down hard against any further development.
In many ways the developed nations who enact the environmental regulations without question are actually pushing themself backward toward becoming less developed nations with lower standards of living for everyone but the highest social classes, of course.
If their own restrictions 'for environmental reasons that can't actually be proven to be what they are claimed to be for' are set high enough they effectively choke themselves off to the point they will drop backwards in development, social standards, production, jobs, employment and everything else that made them what they are and where they stood before the whole 'environmental regulations(but only for developed nations) for the good of the planet' mess started.

It's not an environmental issue a that point but pure economic redistribution tactic to force those who have, because they work for it,to give it to those who don't and are incapable/unwilling to work to raise them above where they have placed themselves due to lack of willingness or ability to step up and run their lives responsibly.

For plausible things to ponder over who really gains and loses what from 'Global climate change regulations':eek:

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
and
http://netrightdaily.com/2015/12/th...aty-about-wealth-redistribution-nothing-more/
and
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-un-promote-economic-agenda/
and
https://davegj13.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/the-climate-change-scam-quotes-from-the-idiot-left/
and
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/0...hift-trillions-to-form-new-world-economy.html
and
https://mises.org/library/income-inequality-hoax


It's the very social issue we are seeing and dealing with everyday right now. Those who don't have and won't work to get what they want do their damndest to find ways to force those who do have and do work for what they want to support them and if they won't they not only do everything they can to stop the working persons from doing what it is they did to get to where they are but try to drag that person down to their level to 'make it fair'. It has very little real relation to any form of valid defined provable global scale environmental anything. :mad:

In many of these debates I have been called a selfish entitled elitist because I don't want to give up what I work for let alone be forced to support those who won't work to get what they want. How does that work exactly that am an 'entitled elitist' if I don't want to give up what I work for to support those who feel they deserve everything I have without having to actually ever work and sacrifice to get it? o_O

If working to get what I want and learning about everything that affects my life, so that I am prepared to either deal with it or counter its negative impact on myself, and feel that if someone else wants what I have they can get off their lazy stupid butts and do what I did (actually work and live responsibly within my means) without ever expecting/demanding let alone took a handout along the way makes me an entitled elitist so be it.
I hope to grow old and die being the most hated 'entitled elitist' that ever lived and supported what his country was founded on and for! ;)
 
Last edited:

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
That could certainly happen... some call it "The Runaway Point"
Yes, It seems to be a delicate balance.
The sea ice is thinning. It doesn't raise sea level but it must reflect less sunlight creating more warming.
Here is a looong video about Greenland which will effect both sea level and reflectivity in a big way.
It seems easy to see it "tipping over", but who knows for sure.
I'm going to sell my Miami Beach property and leave my kids the money instead. :rolleyes:
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
That could certainly happen... some call it "The Runaway Point"
'Could' being the operative word there. ;)

The issue I have is way too much speculation is based on 'what if' and not 'what has' or 'what can be proven'.

How much worst case scenario 'what if' ever happens in your life or mine or anyone else's really? o_O

Statistically near never for me and likely similar for you and everyone else. So do you put a huge amount of your time effort and money into 'what if 'prevention or do you just deal with things as they actually do play out?


If you have doubts and consider 'what if' a real threat to your life I have a great deal for you! You tell me what your 'what if scenario is and I will charge you 80% of your gross income to keep it from happening! But,should it happen,I will say you did something to cause it and thus I have zero responsibility to actually pay you or do anything about your claim. I couldn't if I wanted to being by the time your claim did come I will have spent all your money and more on whatever I felt like that had nothing to do with anyone else's well being or concerns but my own and my concerns are never the same as yours. :D

I would ask if you are in for it but really, I'm the government so you don't have a choice. :p
You're in whether you like it or not. You voted for me and if you didn't vote that's fine, your neighbor did so I get say over your life by proxy and his 'what if's' plus get to put an outrageous price tag on them at my own discretion. ;)
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,220
'Could' being the operative word there. ;)

The issue I have is way too much speculation is based on 'what if' and not 'what has' or 'what can be proven'
You're right... but then again, if we reach the point of "what has", then it will quite possibly be too late!

As for "what can be proven", it's more or less on the same venue... in science, one has to wait until things happen to actually prove something.
So we need to get "predictive" ... but unfortunately, the amount of noise presented by both sides of the problem is so large that it's almost impossible to judge who's right... until things finally happen, that is ... and then the game will be "who's fault is it?"
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
Your right of course. But on the other hand, what if they are right and it tips over due to positive feedback? That would make those still around say why didn't they do something when they could have made a difference.
It is truly a philosophical question as to our responsibility to future generations. Suppose we could look forward 10 generations, a little over 300 years, and determine with certainty that those people would be far better off if today we eliminate 50% of ourselves. Would/should we do it? How do we balance the rights of future humans when we can barely balance the rights of existing humans?

We currently allow abortion, so as a society we have already said "screw the unborn". How can the lefties claim to be concerned about sea levels seen by future generations while being pro-abortion at the same time? It's OK to eliminate part of the population as long as it's targeted and not done randomly?
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,220
It's OK to eliminate part of the population as long as it's targeted and not done randomly?
Please, allow me complete your sentence: "It's OK to eliminate part of the population as long as it's targeted and not done randomly, and is unable to defend itself?"
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
Well, the population I was thinking of was not babies per se but primarily the poor, black population. We kill about 3,000 fetuses everyday in America, and nearly 2,000 of those are black. It may be the longest running eugenics program in human history.

The case can be made that we're better off. For instance the book Freakonomics suggested that today's lower crime rates followed increased access to abortions. So while we may be the beneficiaries, would we say it was worth it? If we are happy to say yes, then what argument is there against other eugenics programs to improve our future generations? Why NOT kill off the mentally ill, the short, the ugly, the dumb, and so on?
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
It is truly a philosophical question as to our responsibility to future generations. Suppose we could look forward 10 generations, a little over 300 years, and determine with certainty that those people would be far better off if today we eliminate 50% of ourselves. Would/should we do it? How do we balance the rights of future humans when we can barely balance the rights of existing humans?
Or put another way -- would they be extinct?
Of course the question follows: How much would we need to reduce it?

We currently allow abortion, so as a society we have already said "screw the unborn". How can the lefties claim to be concerned about sea levels seen by future generations while being pro-abortion at the same time? It's OK to eliminate part of the population as long as it's targeted and not done randomly?
I don't think anyone is pro abortion. Some are pro choice. Even those people tend to put a time frame around where life begins.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
You're right... but then again, if we reach the point of "what has", then it will quite possibly be too late!

As for "what can be proven", it's more or less on the same venue... in science, one has to wait until things happen to actually prove something.
So we need to get "predictive" ... but unfortunately, the amount of noise presented by both sides of the problem is so large that it's almost impossible to judge who's right... until things finally happen, that is ... and then the game will be "who's fault is it?"
I look at predicting things as large as the planetary climate future to be as realistic as being able to accurately calculate how to gamble and win in Las Vegas but not at one casino on one game but every casino and every game at once.

Every mathematician claims this to be doable and has the numbers to back it up yet so far every one who has tried it proved their infallible calculations fail in real life application. And that was just tying to do it on one single game like blackjack. Heck they even have made movies about it!

I don't have a problem with being more responsible with our resources I never have. If anything I excel at it.

What I have a huge problem with it throwing huge amounts of better spent time money and resources at 'what ifs' that so far have shown that they can not be predicted with the least bit of accuracy that are backed by high levels of political and power greed , misdirection, exaggerations and full outright lies. :mad:
 
Last edited:

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
Okay? And what do we and most every other living thing does to survive? o_O

Population control that which we see as competing against us or to be of benefit to us. That's what.

Either ther a species is seen as beneficial to our way of life and encouraged to thrive (domestication/symbiotic relationship) or it's seen as a nuisance/detriment and thusly population control of some form is deemed necessary and enforced as seen needed.

The basic rules are,

Beneficial = Encouragement to thrive.

Nuisance/detriment = Population control as in kill it and try to keep it from coming back.

It's how life works regardless of timeline or lifeform. Be useful or be dead. :rolleyes:
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Even those people tend to put a time frame around where life begins.
A politically negotiated time frame.

If I was leading a campaign to legalize murder
I'd call it a late term abortion. Let's see, for me on my next birthday it would be an abortion in the 252nd term.

Ok, let's cut the world population in half. How many volunteers do we have for some late term abortions?
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Don't be so sure.
http://www.alternet.org/comments/i-...sons-why-we-must-support-procedure-and-choice

It's semantics anyway. If I was leading a campaign to legalize murder, would it sound any different to you if I called it pro-choice of murder?
Yes, I suppose there are some. :( I do see a difference. It is when you perceive life to begin. There will of course never be agreement on that one, but we have some laws around it.
But I don't see a big line of pro - lifers lined up to adopt little black kids.:rolleyes:
We already have pro murder. It's called war. Gota make sure we get 'em born so we can send them off to die.:D
That would make an interesting study. The family income of those that fight our wars for us.
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
A politically negotiated time frame.



I'd call it a late term abortion. Let's see, for me on my next birthday it would be an abortion in the 252nd term.

Ok, let's cut the world population in half. How many volunteers do we have for some late term abortions?
I'm not quite ready. But I do try to conserve a lot more that I used to. I also don't mind paying a few $ more in taxes if it helps. For example gas is 50% cleaner than coal and now about the same price. Maybe we could put some people to work building gas powered plants. Could that bridge us to solar? No babies were killed doing this.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Natural gas is used where it is plentiful. My old mechanic, use to modify cars and other engines for propane. Problem is the distribution is limited.

On edit....it was 20 cents cheaper.

You can get your mechanic to modify your vehicle. You can always get 20 lbs just about anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Top