 85242 |
 35212 |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||
| Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
|
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
 Member 629 Level 46.64 Mar 2006 
|
Earth's poles reverse quite randomly, and the transition is pretty damn speedy. Some folks guestimate that it is within maybe a century or two.
Think of the poles as a dipole magnet (the old magnet bars you screwed around with as a kid. N & S ends). When the poles swap, the bar that the Earth basically forms inverts. The N & S sides shrink at the same pace, then once they meet in the middle, the N comes out the originally S side, and the S comes out the originally N side, and the polar intensity increases. Now, you may be talking about technological updates, firmware, etc which is all good. But bear in mind the amount of time this will go across. Hell, there could be a brief stint where compasses are more or less useless around the middle of all this. One of the main concerns, though, is that the magnetic field around the Earth shields it come crazy-ass UV rays. Some scientists theorize that there is a pretty brief warming period as the poles get situated once they near their "meeting point" around the core. Plus, it is quite important in atmospheric formation. For a contrast, the moon has, like, zero magnetic field. This is due to its solid insides, whereas the Earth's liquid outer core serves as a mechanism for causing this dipole magnet effect. Oh wait. Global Warming thread. HolyCaribou -- We aren't really "overdue". As far as I know, scientists don't know how to tack down what causes the pole reversals. They're quite random. Jam it back in, in the dark.
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
Member 629 Level 46.64 Mar 2006
|
1) Most of the world's temperature change would begin to show in the oceanic temperatures. The ocean's temperatures haven't changed at all since these were deployed. The temperatures actually cooled in the past five years (although not enough to instill a crazy cold-wave). 2) A group of GEOPHYSICISTS (real scientists. Not poseurs like these Environmental Studies wackos that are writing articles) looked over temperature changes in the Antarctic across the past 50 years. Despite how folks are panicking about ice melting marginally at present, this is a normal trend. The temperature in Antarctica has been relatively constant for the past 50 years (when these studies began), except for one region. That region got colder. 3) CO2 has never been proven as a cause of this. It's just a likely source to blame since industrial countries give it off in loads. In addition to this, the computer models constantly in use are so flawed that they're laughable. It is based upon weather predicting software which in itself is horribly inaccurate outside of a mere week. That inaccuracy gets exponentially worse as time draws on. Tag on to this that we're talking about a world-wide trend. Every year, scientists make a prediction on weather (due to Global Warming supposedly happening) and it ends up being horribly wrong. Increase in hurricanes in the Gulf? Nada. I was in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer and I must say that it was pretty darn tame. There is no "pure intention" behind this. There are selfish gains to be had in pursuing and branding this topic. The lackluster science will fool many eyes, but not all of them. Al Gore isn't a scientist nor does he know much on this topic. For reference, he refuses to debate with a specialist, and his questions he answers on the air are screened and relatively softball questions. But the IPCC is probably your main focus on this subject, right? Well, the IPCC is a political organization. Plus, its scientists are lacking in credentials considerably. You may tout a "consensus" in a post or two (which does not exist in the first place. It's just a convenient false-justification to shut people up), but let me tell you first-hand that scientists do not believe in consensus. If they did, we'd still be healing people with leeches and thinking that all the planets revolve around the Earth. You want to see debates where progress was RUINED thanks to a lack of science causing a scare? Let's look at two similar past scares that are very, very similar to the hype caused by Global Warming. a) Nuclear Power. There was a movie called The China Syndrome released about two weeks before Three Mile Island melted down. Following the melt-down, folks went in to scare-mode and demanded that nuclear power should be abandoned. Even though NO ONE was killed or even exposed to radioactive material. You may point to Chernobyl, but that was shoddy Russian engineering at its worst. The reactor had a meltdown in the 1980s, but the plant was built in the 60s. Even by 1960s Russian standards, it was deemed as very poorly-built. That is THE absolute worst-case scenario. If nuclear power hadn't been canned, I can't begin to imagine how far along our technology in the field would be by now. b) DDT. There was a supposed thinning of egg shells which was NEVER PROVEN. There was strong evidence of bird species in the area flourishing rather than crashing. It was tested on mice for carcinogenic response, as well. The mice got cancer, but that's because they were fed old, molded cheese (as per normal that day). Feeding them this food eventually resulted in cancer just the same. The banning of DDT use resulted in Malaria epidemics in third world countries, resulting in more deaths than Hitler... And counting. Weigh that situation in your mind for a spell. Despite what folks think, doubting Global Warming isn't akin to denying the moon landing or thinking JFK was killed by aliens. The vast majority of folks bumbling through this subject are in fact armchair "scientists" who actually are just rooting for a team because they "sound better". In politics, over 80% of people are too lazy to thoroughly research and weigh the people running. They will obsess over one platform and scrutinize over that. Out of that base number, even LESS make it to the polls to vote. This isn't politics; this is science. Unfortunately, it has found its way in to the political realm. The 20% that DO look in to the subject matter in elections? That number is even smaller on Global Warming, simply because most folks don't have the background or knowledge to properly follow it. What's going on is the "sheep" mentality, I'm afraid. You may love to say "oh well, debate is over. Facts are in," but Atmospheric Sciences is a VERY young science. If you ask a scientist what he thinks the problem is on something that he CAN'T ANSWER, he will give a hypothesis. That hypothesis is grabbed by someone along the grapevine as a theory. Before you know it, that is in the papers as a purported fact and is being used as fuel for a politicized scientific debate. We can't even get weather predicting straight, and now you want to take the researchers' word on this without question? You talk about the opposition having lacking evidence, but the fact is that it's the side CLAIMING Global Warming that is lacking in evidence. It'll fib or show a tiny grain of truth caked in a glob of bullshit and that's good enough to fool most people. I wouldn't brand this as people and scientists being evil. I'd brand them as being human. There is money to be made in the environmental sector for once, and you've got a big ol' gravy train building up that folks are hopping onto without any second thoughts. Environmental journalism was CREATED by this debate. With the thousands of people whose talons are hooked in to this, there's no way they want it to go down. Many folks don't see this as a chance to "save the world." They see it as a way to make money. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
Last edited by Gechmir; Apr 1, 2008 at 04:40 AM.
|
Member 629 Level 46.64 Mar 2006
|
You saw it coming? Dandy. Here's a cookie. I don't see it as a "cheap trick," but as RELEVANT. People continued doing it for YEARS because "oh. So-and-so said it works." The same applies to Copernicism and Galileo. The Earth's placement in the universe was questioned and there was massive peer-pressure and black-listing going on. Pardon me for not going along with the sheep mentality on this debate. I guess it's my fault for specializing on the subject.
DDE can cause thinning, but you need a TREMENDOUS amount of it which usually isn't found in nature:
What can cause a thinning egg shell? Oil, lead, and mercury content in the diet (meaning if they are eating from a contaminated food source), stress from noise, disease, fear, etc are more causes. There's also the fact that older birds produce thinner shells and bigger birds produce thicker ones. The eggs also thin as the embryo absorbs the calcium from the inner egg-shell. You also need to take in to account dehydration, temperature, less light coverage (less illumination = thinner shell), human or predator intrusion, a phosphorus deficiency, and calcium deficiency. Lets break these down to potential causes. These birds were being monitored in captivity. Now, if you read up on some journals on the topic, the birds being watched were ALREADY on a low calcium diet. Dieldrin was added to the diet as well which happens to cause shell-thinning. Canadian terns were tested, whose eggs contained 100ppm of DDE. Despite these very high levels, the shells were NOT thinner than normal. Bald eagles? They were on the extinction list by 1921 (25yrs before DDT usage). Alaska also posted BOUNTIES on Bald Eagles, encouraging hunting of them (1917-1942). They paid over $100k for the ~115k Bald Eagles that were killed. Bald Eagles in England were already GONE by 1937. When Bald Eagles were counted up 15 years after DDT having "ravaged" the bird populace, the bird population was actually 25% larger than it was before DDT. Just so you know, birds don't bounce back too fast on repopulating, particularly Bald Eagles. DDE by itself was tested on bald eagles and their eggs showed NO thinning. The Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript issued an article on this if you're curious. Postupalsky, 1971. To add to this, all Bald Eagles that were found dead from 1961-1977 were collected. None of them died due to DDT exposure. I could go in to the specifics on other species, but I'll hit the mainstream bird populace which supposedly plummeted. The raptor was on a decline that was tied to matters outside of DDE, DDT, etc. By the 1960s, its population was in the middle of exploding. DDT was banned in 1972, just so you know. In fact, some birds grew so great in number BEFORE the ban on DDT, that they actually became pests of sorts for people.
Conspiracy is a birthchild of mis-information. People didn't read in to DDT and just browsed the headlines on a few articles and listened to the loudest voices. Politicians pick what helps them keep their job, and since the book that caused the DDT scare was so popular, the choice was clear very quickly. The claims that DDT was killing birds left-and-right are untrue, the modern viewpoint on it spanning from the original misinformation and hysteria. Global Warming is the same. You said yourself that you don't know the science, but you're more than willing to listen to what a news source tells you since "it's their job." Sorry, but you've got to dig if you want to find gold, bud.
Following this, they were asked "why aren't you putting 10% of your revenue towards alternative, Green energy?" You may talk about the billions of dollars chugging through oil, but Green is a current hot topic amid the sheep and the crooks in Washington. The government is stepping in and TELLING a business what to do with its money. I don't know about you, but that's pretty damn ridiculous. What Green is doing is establishing the Oil industry as evil and making itself the good guy in this argument. You don't need the cash of the oil industry if you can obtain a moral high-ground in the publics eyes. And regarding "evil scientists," look higher up in my post. I've spoken with researchers who have ADMITTED that they are just aiming for "greener pastures" and picking the side that'll give them more funding. Hell, I used to work for a fella who did aerosol particle research. After DeLay got indicted, all the grants he championed were snagged and I was left out of work since my employer lost his funding. Want to guess where all that funding went? ALL of it? Global Warming. If you think there isn't money to be had in this, then you're blind.
I see this as a potential chance to look past oil and to another fuel source. Oil isn't infinite, and the population is growing. What I DON'T like is how people are going to legislate and do crazy shit so they can "save the planet" from bursting in to flames. Are fossil fuels good for the environment? Not particularly. Look at the smog in LA & Houston, for starters. The problem is that this debate is scaring people in to doing shit NOW NOW NOW FAST, when in actuality, there is no big bad climate that's going to kill us all. If we try to move too fast and do too much at once, things will really, REALLY get ugly. If we get off oil, that's fine. I'd much rather that we do it slowly, though. Is the oil industry's record spotless? Lord no. Is the green industry? Definitely not. It's business, and business is dirty. And on that note, I'm off. Boats to ride, planes to catch =( Back in two days. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Hey, maybe you should try that thing Chie was talking about.
|
Gechmir