Polar Shifts Causing Global Superstorms

satsunada

Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
632
Lemme add another shrimp to the barbie, his bio also lists a "credit" where he wrote about an asteriod hitting us in 2036 (i assume he means Apophis but meh). He should be writing for Sun or the National Enquirer.
 

Sniviler

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2004
Messages
484
The compass thats been sitting on my desk for almost twenty years still points north :)
 

krotch

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
4,509
If your compass is pointing to grid north, something might be wrong.
 

tubular

Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
982
you won't find a single person who will deny this. the climate has constantly changed since it existed. what people will deny - because there is no evidence - is that modern humanity is significantly affecting the change.

Hahaha, really? Have you been shutting your eyes covering your ears and humming really loudly?
Lets see....
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html


Here is a GREAT website that shows that Human caused global warming is a complete hoax!
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Oh, did I mention that it was started and is run by big tobacco lobbyists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition
 

nissanztt90

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
3,858
its easy to be correct when you keep changing the name of the "crisis" to fit around the data that keeps proving their previous agenda wrong. whats it called this week again? climate disruption or something? lets see it was... global warming, then climate change (because change is scary... except when its "change we can believe in", then ultra global climate extremo or something? i cant even keep track anymore. they should just call the weather an irrational homophobic bigot and get it over with.

So the name was changed once, yet you see it fit to imply its continually changed to fit the "new" data that has proved the "previous agenda" wrong? Well i hate to break it too you but the long term trend is still warming, so the term global warming does in fact still apply, and correctly. The change to the term climate change is simply because thats really all it is. The earth warms and cool periodically. In fact, its happened on a magnitude much greater than today...and totally naturally!

Except...these natural occurances happen over tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and possibly even millions of years. Weve made a measurable impact in 160 years. Deny the issue all you wish.
 

Hedghawg71

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
193
Aww man! We are screwed when the Dolphins leave! :p "So long and thanks for all the fish!" as their last message. All BS aside. The weather is getting weird. It isn't anything new that hasn't happened at least once in the earth's history. This crazy cold ice and snow weather we got here in the DFW area last week is a sure sign of that, but it did happen like this back in the early 90's too, so go figure. Too many people in the world look for other people, places or things to blame for things they can't explain when they/we should all just go on the notion that "Shit Happens" sometimes. :p
 

WBurchnall

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
2,622
Damn, where is Al Gore at when you need him? I am sure I would feel guilty about something after he explained the Magnetic poles flipping for me.....

Look up, way up. See that private jet carrying 3 people, a pilot, flight attendant and the man himself? It might be him!
 

APE992

n00b
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
12
It's still the fault of SUV's. They're so big and metallic that they're affecting the magnetic......ah I can't do it with a straight face. I'd make a terrible liberal.

Sounds more like the logic of Sarah Palin to me.

You'd make a great mouth breather.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
When the high profile climate evangelicals (Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.) stop flying private jets, driving fleets of SUVs, allow wind turbines to be built in view of their posh vacation homes and adopt all the regulations and sacrifices they demand of the uneducated masses... that's when I'll believe in man-caused climate change.

Wow ...what great reasoning. :rolleyes:
 

nissanztt90

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
3,858
IMO most who do not believe in climate change do so for their own selfish reasons. For these people to acknowledge that we are alterning our environment would require them to do something or make a change. It is far easier to do nothing and pretend it doesn't exist. I just hope these people learn to swim.

I feel that a small percentage of people feel this way, but i feel a large percentage of people simply follow this mindset because of shills that feel this way.
 

KnishofDeath

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,089
Hahaha, really? Have you been shutting your eyes covering your ears and humming really loudly?
Lets see....
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html


Here is a GREAT website that shows that Human caused global warming is a complete hoax!
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Oh, did I mention that it was started and is run by big tobacco lobbyists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition


Thanks for posting this, the ignorance on this issue is INSANE, it really is.

Some idiot pundit on Fox News, that gets paid millions of dollars to ensure high ratings by appealing to a particular political ideology says global warming isn't real and all these neanderthals buy into it hook, line and sinker. Sad.
 

tubular

Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
982
Thanks for posting this, the ignorance on this issue is INSANE, it really is.

Some idiot pundit on Fox News, that gets paid millions of dollars to ensure high ratings by appealing to a particular political ideology says global warming isn't real and all these neanderthals buy into it hook, line and sinker. Sad.

I already had all the links from previous debates with friends about the reality of the situation. They tried linking that junkscience website as a reliable look into why global warming absolutely WASN'T caused or even affected by humans. Sometimes researching into sources turns up very interesting evidence as to the people behind such a site and their true objectives.
 

Sprkslfly

Gawd
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
514
you won't find a single person who will deny this. the climate has constantly changed since it existed. what people will deny - because there is no evidence - is that modern humanity is significantly affecting the change.

There's no significant change eh? I seriously doubt you could make that claim if there were one 10th of the world's population (and resulting pollution) compared to the current levels.

I'd say the human population is DEFINITELY a significant factor in the equation. Hell, consider all the deforestation for starters alone...(and I friekin *hate* all the tree huggin hippy crap that demands 'not a single tree more' type shit) but I have to be honest enough to admit, that if the majority of the trees that have been lost *not* been harvested, then there would certainly be a little more oxygen than CO2. Basic math...

We need to find someone who has a decent and sustaining need/conservation ratio, and then more importantly *listen and act* once the ratio is proven safe. Foregoing all the lobbying powers that currently sway. If there's no human life, then the state of the earth really doesn't matter (to us) does it?
 

Sprkslfly

Gawd
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
514
I've never like the title "Global Warming". It would be better described as "Climate Influence" or something. Its not just the can of aerisal spray, and auto's emissions... It's the destruction of tropical rain forests, elimination of wetlands, building levy systems to control natural river floods, eliminating earth's natural absorption of the water by blocking the flood planes or replacing grass lands with pavement (roads, parking lots, buildings) and storm sewer run off systems. Most citys are all roads, buildings, and parking lots with huge storm drain systems to remove rain water quickly and directly to the rivers systems (also causing worse floods down stream of that city). All that pavement also leads to a "radiate heat effect" during dry times too. Walk barefoot on grass and then onto pavement and you'll notice a difference anytime of year. This extra thermal-radiant warming adds to the so called "global warming". There is sooooo many more dynamics to mans influence on the climate that most people don't consider. ... Mother Nature's natural coarse of events has always happens over long lengths of time. Man's influence to her delicate cycle is more drastic then known. We will evolve with it, but it should be expected to see some drastic changes to life as we know it.

Well said Pringals. Very well said. *cheers*

And to me,
"Global Warming"...would be better described as "Climate Influence" or something
is really the same thing. It's all a way to say what you described above so well. The effects mankind has on the climate.
 

Sprkslfly

Gawd
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
514
Yes, its a cycle but we are due for polar shift. Happens about 24,000 years. <snip> Where I live seems to be normal weather.

And since weather forecasting, observation, and recorded historical data has been around for that length of time..and it doesn't appear to be a random number pulled outta your ass..I'll totally believe ya!! :p ;)
 

Sprkslfly

Gawd
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
514
OH THANK GOD

The world is saved again by the intrepid gang of [H] scientists! Returning to their basement lair and arming themselves with sodas and chips, they have managed to, yet again, save the earth from climate change. They did this by collectively informing the population of their delicate research into the matter. Most of the researchers were using thought-experiments due to lack of funding, but if it was good enough for Einstein it's good enough for anyone, right? They can look forward to bright futures as extremist news pundits with no real knowledge about whatever topic they are covering.

All hail our leader. :D
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
823
HARP and other ways to change weather (weather warfare). Explain the exteme weather conditions in Eastern United States and Australia Floods. How about exteme cold which suppose to be global warming? How about another ice age comming slowed by warming of pollution. In my opinion weather changing is possible but not fully under mans control.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
823
It was made up by global elite to keep our focus off of them and suck us dry moneywise. Come to British Columbia have it rammed down your throat. Carbon tax this Carbon tax that. Its a ploy so we are sucked dry and poor stay poor and rich stay rich. Getting ready for next gas tax in July 1 2011 another few cents to support a nonsense that plays into peoples fears just like overpopulation (You know can fit world population in State of Texas). Just nonsense to keep us poor and dupered.

Made my double post leave it to you. Takes more people to say enough is enough. I am not saying is bad to recycle but I am saying their are tons of solutions neatly tucked under rug (bought off by goverment).
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
I think it's all just piss and wind. The storms are abnormal, but they have happened before, and the world didn't end.

It's just weak media reporting because journalists have neither the resources nor the inclination to bother reporting anything of worth. The weather is extremely easy to report, hence the overemphasis on it in the media.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
2012: all those new age prophecies are coming true. holy shit I am scared.
our gubment needs to fix this. maybe convert a few hundred nuclear bombs to emp bombs
and explode them in strategic locations to push the magnetic field back....
 

faugusztin

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
2,668
2012: all those new age prophecies are coming true. holy shit I am scared.
our gubment needs to fix this. maybe convert a few hundred nuclear bombs to emp bombs
and explode them in strategic locations to push the magnetic field back....

You know, the best fun will be waking up @ 22th December 2012 and LOLing in face of all 2012 crazies :).
 

LordBritish

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2001
Messages
2,062
Don't forget the 1000s of dead fish and birds.

The end can not be far by brothers (and sisters).
 

mdburkey

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
498
Personally, I think the article is a bit, well, "out there".

That said, there is still a lot of truthful info in there if you read around all the scare tactics and bravado.

I also loathe the phrase "global warming" as used in the media. "Climate change" would be a much better term to use.

Some of the things that the major media tends to gloss over and/or ignore completely though:

1) Our current warm interglacial period has already lasted longer than the statistical average length -- i.e. we are due for an ice age.

2) Magnetic pole flips happen and we are also WAY beyond the statistical average between them -- i.e. we are OVERDUE for a pole flip.

3) Even tiny changes in the sun's output have major changes in the weather on Earth -- and changes in the sun's magnetosphere and sun spot cycle are typically linked to changes in output. Go look up "Maunder Minimum" and "the Little Ice Age". Then go take a look at NASA records on what the sun spot cycle has been like for the last several years -- with the basic jist being "wonky"!

4) The weather in parts of North America and ESPECIALLY Europe should NOT really be as warm as it generally has been historically. It is only due to the currents in the Atlantic that Europe stays warm. Basically, Paris is further North than Nova Scotia and London is as far North as Newfoundland -- but, trust me, the weather is a LOT different. If anything interrupts the currents Europe is going back into the deep freeze.

5) While mankind probably is affecting the climate by pumping CO2 and Methane into the atmosphere, I personally doubt this is the root cause of the wacky weather -- but it may help exacerbate an already volatile situation and push us toward an ice age even quicker. Yes, "global warming" probably pushes us toward an ice age FASTER. If you look at gas readings from core samples, the level of atmospheric CO2 has been at levels near this or higher than this at many points in the past -- and always immediately just BEFORE an Ice Age hit. One problem with "global warming" is that it tends to make all weather more intense -- including the frozen kind -- and while CO2 traps heat, a solid white snow pack does a wonderful job of reflecting sunlight straight back out into space without absorbing that much heat. A lot of models show a threshold point at which the increase in winter precipitation in the far North outstrips the added rate of summer thaw/melt in the mid-latitude. Unfortunately, a lot of these same models show the mid-latitude thaw screwing with the North Atlantic current as well -- which only makes things worse (and they get there faster). One that happens, all it takes is one bad enough winter to to pile up more snow and ice in the mid-latitudes than can melt during the summer and things start going downhill in a hurry -- i.e. Ice Age (and if you add in potential +/-1% differences in solar output during the same time period things can get even more dire).

In essence, it looks like "buckle up kiddies, we are in for a wild ride"!
 

kubla_khan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
211
Shared with us his many learnins'. Srsly.

I saw no need to quote you, as I agree with every last word you said, and just wanted to add to it.
l would just like to stress the need for awareness of the motivations behind both sides of the issue, beyond the obvious sensationalism and promotion of fear of both man-made global warming and a fear of a conspiracy to create fear of global warming by media orgs on both sides.
In reality it's a very complicated issue, and big business on both sides of the spectrum are most definitely trying to cash in and cut their losses at the same time, and thus are at odds with each other. On the one hand, there's A LOT of money to be made, and lost, in the "greening" of society and industry, and both sides are pumping a ton of $$ to promote either Global Warming or a disbelief in it.
Conspiracy theorists should check out Maurice Strong, currently living in and running a long con on China (but screw them, amirite?), who should probably replace Al Gore as their dartboard cover, and this would just be the tip of the iceberg in what is at the very least a corporate and U.N. money/power grab for greening, regardless of which side you're on. Real or not, the idea of man-made global warming is almost certainly being used to erode national sovereignty and benefit from the fear in a multitude of ways that have nothing to do with actually improving the climate or anyone else's lives. Even the ZOMG Washington Post, just last year, wrote an article about hurricane expert William M. Gray saying, "He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to 'organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'" There's mountains more, if you care to look it up, but you get my point.
On the other hand, straight from wiki,
"United States Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stated in 1998 that: 'it’s an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts... the energy companies need to be called to account because what they are doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people.'
Further evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial has been produced by Greenpeace with their Exxon Secrets project. ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut funding to many of the groups that were denying the science behind global warming but continues to fund over 'two dozen other organizations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis.'
A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said 'misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence'." Tons more, but again, you see my point.
Regarding the polar shift and prophets of doom, remember that every generation in all of recorded history has feared it was the last, with many being quite certain with a mountain of very convincing supporting evidence. Every last one of them (except for David Koresh, within his microcosm at least) so far has been hilariously wrong, many of them repeatedly. Certainly you all remember Y2K? fail.
 

mdburkey

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
498
@kubla_khan:

I agree...

Basically, I trust neither the government, the media, the conspiracy theorists. nor the green left. All have their own hidden agendas and emphasize only those points in studies that build up their own cases.

My own feelings are that man is contributing to climate change -- but that there are cycles within cycles of climate change going on all the time and we are but one variable in an equation that is almost unfathomable.

What worries me is when I look at all the different info and see the potential for 3 or 4 different cycles converging in what amounts to a "perfect storm" of climate change -- with the end result being some really freaking nasty weather and the long term probability of throwing us into another ice age (though there is also some hope that our greenhouse gas emissions might just be great enough to exceed the counter factors that trigger a relapse into glaciation -- what a lot of people overlook is that TECHNICALLY we are still merely in a warm interglacial period during an ongoing ice age -- there are many periods in Earths past where there was NO permanent ice packs at the poles).

In any of the cases though, I don't foresee it being the "end of the world" -- but it may really SUCK bad for a lot of regions. The only constant is change -- and it is either going to get warmer or colder.

Personally, while it will royally suck for a lot of the world and overall weather will get rougher, warmer is better -- it will mean more moisture pumped into the atmosphere overall, more precipitation, and may even increase the net amount of arable land worldwide (e.g. large parts of Canada and Siberia) -- but there will be a lot of flooding and such and a lot of current crop land will be worthless. Basically, the vested interests and current world powers have a LOT to lose -- but it may even be a good thing for humanity and or the world as a whole.

If cooling is the winner though, while humanity will continue (e.g. the tropics will still be nice, albeit dryer) the amount of land lost due to ice cover, etc is a LOT worse.

The simple answer is -- we don't really have a clue which way things will go at this point and the near impossibility of predicting the sun's output makes the equation basically unsolvable!
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,258
Personally, I think the article is a bit, well, "out there".

That said, there is still a lot of truthful info in there if you read around all the scare tactics and bravado.
!

From page 2 of the article
Worse, what shields the planet from cancer-causing radiation is the magnetic field. It acts as a shield deflecting harmful ultra-violet, X-rays and other life-threatening radiation from bathing the surface of the Earth

This so far wrong that it really makes me doubt every single thing written in that article.
 

kubla_khan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
211
@mdburkey
What you said basically sums up my rather confused feeling on the issue of climatology, and I think it's kind of hubris on the part of anyone to do more than present findings and statistics and speculate. ie, I don't think anyone "knows" which way things are going to go climate-wise, there are too many variables and too many climate changes in the past which are not satisfactorily explained.
I also don't want anyone to take what I said to mean that humans in general and particularly Americans (because that's where I live) shouldn't be good stewards of their environment. ex. What the mining companies have done in the Appalachians is abhorrent (I know because that's even more specifically where I live), obliterating (by "topping") over 500 of the oldest mountains in the world in the course of destroying the most bio-diverse area in North America and turning it into a flat desert. Srsly. It makes me sick. Perhaps some may remember the slaughtering flash floods the strip mining caused in the 70s.
Oh yeah, and if we could stop selling our nonrenewable fresh water supply from the Ogalala Aquifer, the one that millions of people in several states depend on, to the freakin' chinese, well, that would be great.
And just because there is an obvious $grabbing self-serving push for "green" this and that, certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for and implementing alternative, renewable energy (esp. that ever-elusive better battery) for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is getting off foreign oil, and hopefully soon, petroleum altogether. If the shit hits the fan before this happens, we are an order of magnitude exponentially much more screwed.
However, I ain't driving a damn Prius. :)
 

Crispy002

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,372
The article is garbage.

It took a few correct basic ideas and BSed all the details into one complete scare-tactic piece of crap.
 

mdburkey

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
498
From page 2 of the article
This so far wrong that it really makes me doubt every single thing written in that article.

While wrong on the specific types of radiation, the magnetic field does help deflect the charged particles in the solar wind and does help protect surface life in the event of solar storms or CME's. A lot of these charged particles are thought to be what forms the Van Allen belts (although scientists still debate the full mechanism for the Van Allen belts existence).

So, yes, the magnetic field does not do anything to deflect gamma rays or x-rays (which are essentially photons) but it does help deflect harder radiation such as Alpha or Beta. That said, most Alpha and Beta is absorbed by the atmosphere anyway and generally does not reach the ground (although it the magnetic field was weaker the levels reaching the ground would be higher -- especially if we were being hit by a CME). However, the levels of Alpha and Beta being absorbed by the upper atmosphere does change the amount of energy in the atmosphere -- which will increase the number of aurora seen and also does have an effect on the weather (though to what degree is still not fully understood).
 

faugusztin

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
2,668
And you say instead of the north pole moving south and south polel moving north in opposite direction they will disappear and come back later ? Because that is the only way for the magnetic field they talk about not work.
 

Catboxer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
1,050
130 years of recorded (I'm sure 1/2 of that is not done with proper equipment or methods) does not provide a sufficient data set to attribute anything to anything when the planet is millions of years old.

 

kubla_khan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
211
130 years of recorded (I'm sure 1/2 of that is not done with proper equipment or methods) does not provide a sufficient data set to attribute anything to anything when the planet is millions of years old.

No, but ice core samples, dendrochronology, digging in the earth, and climate models do.
Science, how doez it werk?
 

Ruoh

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
5,858
IMHO, that article writer is just looking for hits.
 

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
130 years of recorded (I'm sure 1/2 of that is not done with proper equipment or methods) does not provide a sufficient data set to attribute anything to anything when the planet is millions of years old.


Millions? Couldn't decide if science (billions) and creationists (thousands) are right so you split the middle?
 

EvanH

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
128
you won't find a single person who will deny this. the climate has constantly changed since it existed. what people will deny - because there is no evidence - is that modern humanity is significantly affecting the change.

I have half a dozen independently created scientific models that say otherwise.

If you have another model that describes the Earth's weather that accurately describes the collected data about the Earth's past, matches with our measured data from the last 130 years, and shows that our actions are not having a significant impact on global warming, I'd legitimately love to see it. Unfortunately no such scientific models exist that I'm aware of (despite the billions of dollars spent by certain industries trying to show otherwise).

Global warming is the best explanation for the facts that we have. That's how science works. You can't pick and choose which data you're going to accept or ignore.

Science bitches, it works!
 

DocFaustus

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,830
I have half a dozen independently created scientific models that say otherwise.

If you have another model that describes the Earth's weather that accurately describes the collected data about the Earth's past, matches with our measured data from the last 130 years, and shows that our actions are not having a significant impact on global warming, I'd legitimately love to see it. Unfortunately no such scientific models exist that I'm aware of (despite the billions of dollars spent by certain industries trying to show otherwise).

Global warming is the best explanation for the facts that we have. That's how science works. You can't pick and choose which data you're going to accept or ignore.

Science bitches, it works!

Now now, to be fair, can we see those models you have so we know what to look for?

In all fairness, the climatologists are probably doing their best to be scientists, but they are also trying to secure funding so they come out with sensational predictions that just have not been true.

Those glaciers that were shrinking and would be gone by 2035, yea not so much.

No more snow in England, color me surprised. Yea yea, I already know you are going to say but it snows more as it gets warmer (I have heard this already). Well why didn't they predict that instead?

Also, Weather /= Climate!, yea that argument cuts both ways. Logic bitches, it works!
 
Top