An Inconvenient Truth

[Monadnock]

This Article: http://deeptow.whoi.edu/northpole.html states that Magentic North is shifting even further North.


Another Article tracking the Magnetic North in Canada: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/northpole_e.php


This article states Magnetic North could end up in Siberia in 50 years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4520982.stm

Due to mounting litigation from upset customers accusing the Red Ryder BB Gun corporation of selling defective BB guns, the compass in the stock will no longer be a feature.

 

[Makalakumu]

And occassional flipping. I understand we are about due for another pole flip, if I recall correctly. Wouldn't that be exciting LOL

Maybe, maybe not. During past magnetic shifts, the Earth's magnetic field has drastically weakened. And in some cases, almost dissappeared. This would let the solar wind blow directly onto the planet. Radiation levels would get a lot higher and the usage of electronics would get much more difficult.

 

[ginshun]

Is it well established that global warming is necessarily a bad thing?

Just wondering.

I personally wouldn't mind a longer summer, plus the growing season here in WI sure could be better suited for my Habenaeros.

Although I will miss the skiing and snowshoeing.

 

[Bigshadow]

No, you are incorrect. If they made is sound more dire than it is, then we would all need to stop driving and burning petroleum, stop buying cars, stop shopping for crap that is not made to last and will end up in a junk heap, basically stop doing everything that we do and that our economy is built upon. It would destroy the economy. It would be political suicide, so they downplay it and make it sound like conjecture so that we keep on with our merry lives, spend money on junk, and keep buying gas.

That sounds plausible and down right insidious. I would buy that.

 

[Bigshadow]

what does it matter if there are snows on Killamanjaro, anyway?

Mt Fuji as well. I believe the snow has all but disappeared.

 

[Bigshadow]

Yes, actually they were. The global population is much larger today than it was then, so use has increased dramatically.

Actually, you have touched something that I believe is at the core of this. The population. Much like any other species that over populates in an area (the nutria in Louisiana come to mind), there is an over use of the resources.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Heat from the core is insulated pretty well from the surface of the Earth by the various layers in the earth, especially the lithosphere. Heat does escape the earth, but the process in which this occurs is through the highly viscous convection in the asthenosphere, which tears apart lithospheric plates and allows it to escape.

The shifting the magnetic poles is very complex. If you remember you basic geophysics, the Earth has many layers. The mantle - which is composed of dense rock, the outer core - which is composed of molten rock and iron and the inner core - solid iron and heavier metals are the main players that describe how poles shift.

As the Earth rotates on its access, the mantle exerts forces on the liquid core that cause it to spin. Fluid mechanics inside the liquid core cause the solid core to spin. This is not a perfect process, however, so the inner core tends to tumble a bit. This tumbling has been proposed as a possible cause for magnetic pole shifting.

Recent events with Tsunami in the South East Asia caused by plate shift, which is either plates moving together or apart. If one is moving together usually the other side is moving apart which causes magma to release in some cases.

Just curious if we can also add in other points for the discussion. Not trying to derail the discussion, with Red Rider BB guns and such. I am serious about there may be myltiple reason for this Inconvenient Truth to be occuring. I was just trying to keep an open mind and possible a scientific mind to look at the earth system and not spout politics only or personal faith in an unproven theory. (* NOTE: Many theories in Science are unproven just data suggests they are in the right direction. Hence the use of Theory *)

If my discussion points and questions have caused any of you problems, then please accept my apologies and move on.

It was not my intention to be sarcastic but to be someone who would discuss possibilities.

Peace

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually, you have touched something that I believe is at the core of this. The population. Much like any other species that over populates in an area (the nutria in Louisiana come to mind), there is an over use of the resources.

Full agreement here. We are overusing our resources, in large part due to tremendous population growth, but also due to greed and tunnel vision. Population overgrowth and resource depletion lead to huge problems, including massive die-offs, until the population vs. resources regains a new balance, assuming that is possible.

In the natural world, we see this typically as an overabundance of a type of animal, with a scarce food supply. The animal population starves to death until depleted to a point where the food supply can once again support it.

That isn't exactly the case with humans. Instead, we consume other natural resources, many of which are petroleum based. Science is showing us that this consumption is having other effects on the globe, that could lead to some massive problems. Initially it may not be a question of food supply and starvation, but that will certainly come into play if global warming succeeds in changing climates enough to affect our ability to grow food, and if oil reserves crash, crippling our transportation ability and preventing food from getting to the populations that don't actually grow and produce it, like people living in cities. If this happens, we actually could see massive starvation, including in first world countries like the US.

Most people today are very removed from the food producing process. Many of us living in cities and towns do not grow a vegetable garden, do not grow livestock, and do not have fields of produce. We don't even know how to go about creating or finding food for ourselves, if normal food supplies become scarce.

If the people who do know how to produce food, typically farmers, become compromised and taken out of the equation during a massive starvation and the political, social and economic chaos that would accompany such an event, then it will be even worse. If this was a situation with animals, it would be somewhat different. Every animal knows how to find food. Once a new balance is struck, the animals can find enough food, and they begin to survive again. With humans, because most of us have no idea how to make and find food, even if a new balance could be established, lack of food finding skills could lead to a more pronounced catastrophe than might otherwise happen.

I'm just thinking down the line here, about what could be the worse possible scenario. Are we heading for this? I don't know, and I hope not. But it is something interesting to think about, and realize that our behavior could have some tremendous consequences.

 

[Flying Crane]

Rick Piltz, a government scientist for 14 years, resigned in March, 2005 over concerns that scientific documents were being amended for political reasons. Evidence released by Piltz was reported in the NY Times on June 8, 2005. Philip Cooney, the White House official accused of editing the reports, resigned June 10, 2005.

Thanks for finding this. I think this is tremendously important for the public to know.

 

[Makalakumu]

Thanks for finding this. I think this is tremendously important for the public to know.

And the media is silent...

 

[elder999]

And the media is silent...

A group of 60 highly-respected senior scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists accused the Bush administration of altering the facts to fit the views. A document signed by the group charges, "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions." It goes on to say, "This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."

According to USA Today, the signatures read like a who's-who of the scientific community with "20 Nobel Prize winners and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science."White House Office of Science and Technology Policy chief John Marburger dismissed the document, calling it a "conspiracy report" because you just know how readily those crazy Nobel Prize winners buy into conspiracy theories and how poorly they reason.

The full report is available here .


and, yet another moronity in a like vein:

Bush places limits on science

The AP reported here in 2004 that government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health Organization (WHO), a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern of politicizing science.

"I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) sees this as yet another attempt by the Bush [mis]Administration to " [tighten] their controls over their professionals and their scientists ... to favor its right-wing constituents". Waxman wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson asking him to rescind this policy, but as expected Thompson rebuffed the request.

 

[Phoenix44]

Malthusian wall?

 

[Makalakumu]

Malthusian wall?

aka...Peak Oil.

 

[Flying Crane]

(* NOTE: Many theories in Science are unproven just data suggests they are in the right direction. Hence the use of Theory *)

Actually, I believe that when the scientific community uses the term "Theory", it indicates that there is very strong evidence that the theory is in fact truth.

Many people like to jump on the word Theory and use it to cast doubt upon the findings of the scientific community. They claim that the term implies that it is, at best, an educated guess. But this is really far from the truth. When the scientific community accepts a scientific theory, it is their belief that, according to the evidence, this is in fact the truth. Of course nothing can be known completely, 100% and in every detail, but we really are discussing truth, when discussing scientific theory.

Yes, I know, some scientific theories have been overturned with new evidence, but don't let the term itself fool you into thinking that the evidence is not rock-solid.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Actually, I believe that when the scientific community uses the term "Theory", it indicates that there is very strong evidence that the theory is in fact truth.

Many people like to jump on the word Theory and use it to cast doubt upon the findings of the scientific community. They claim that the term implies that it is, at best, an educated guess. But this is really far from the truth. When the scientific community accepts a scientific theory, it is their belief that, according to the evidence, this is in fact the truth. Of course nothing can be known completely, 100% and in every detail, but we really are discussing truth, when discussing scientific theory.

Yes, I know, some scientific theories have been overturned with new evidence, but don't let the term itself fool you into thinking that the evidence is not rock-solid.

I agree there is evidence but can you explain light to me in the particle and wave and beam and have all three models or theories not contradict one of the others? No, I do not think anyone can. Hance the three seperate models to represent what we can "see" from observation. Nothing wrong with any of them it depends on how one is looking at the system and what you are trying to measure.

So I was trying to look at a system of the earth not just the of the earth, and jokes were made. Yet, these same people will condemn people for not believing in Global Warming. I never said I do not believe, what I said was I do not have enough data to show a specific single cause, so I tried to look at the whole system to better understand.

But it seems everyone is just after the BUZZ words and knee jerk reactions and ready to condemn those who do not believe like them.

Example: The world is Flat. I walk and it does not end, so it is flat. I do not see for ever so the horizon is not a good measurement of angle. Yet as soon as you look at objects that all you to move in a straight line and arive back one sees a globe, and then you can use the horizon to see the curviture of the earth, and then from there you can begin to understand more of the system. But if one just looks at a small optimized piece and tries to make sweeping global statements and not look at the global system then I try to point this out to continue a positive discussion.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree there is evidence but can you explain light to me in the particle and wave and beam and have all three models or theories not contradict one of the others? No, I do not think anyone can. Hance the three seperate models to represent what we can "see" from observation. Nothing wrong with any of them it depends on how one is looking at the system and what you are trying to measure.

So I was trying to look at a system of the earth not just the of the earth, and jokes were made. Yet, these same people will condemn people for not believing in Global Warming. I never said I do not believe, what I said was I do not have enough data to show a specific single cause, so I tried to look at the whole system to better understand.

But it seems everyone is just after the BUZZ words and knee jerk reactions and ready to condemn those who do not believe like them.

Example: The world is Flat. I walk and it does not end, so it is flat. I do not see for ever so the horizon is not a good measurement of angle. Yet as soon as you look at objects that all you to move in a straight line and arive back one sees a globe, and then you can use the horizon to see the curviture of the earth, and then from there you can begin to understand more of the system. But if one just looks at a small optimized piece and tries to make sweeping global statements and not look at the global system then I try to point this out to continue a positive discussion.

I understand where you are coming from, and yes, there certainly can be additional, non-human caused contributors to the environmental changes we are seeing. I just wanted to point out that when the Scientific Community referrs to a Theory, they are not referring to anything even remotely resembling a guess, even an educated guess. They are referring to something that has a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it, and the scientific community has accepted the theory as the best, strongest explanation possible, supported by the evidence seen so far.

There are those who try to use this term to undermine the credibility of the Scientific Community, suggesting that they are really just making wild guesses based on little evidence. This is a common tactic of those advocating things like Intelligent Design, or other Bible-based teachings regarding the beginnings of the universe and the earth. I am not suggesting you are one of them. I just wanted to clarify what the term means, when used by the Scientific Community.

If one does not understand the scientific community's intent when using this term, it is easy to assume there are glaring holes in the theory when this is really not the case.

 

[heretic888]

Actually, there are two different meanings of the term "theory" within scientific contexts.

The first definition sees a "theory" as a broad explanatory paradigm that makes sense of a number of existing hypotheses (testable predictions). An example of this is Freud's psychoanalytic theory.

The second definition sees a "theory" as essentially a time-tested hypothesis that has more or less been accepted as "fact" by the scientific community that studies it. An example of this is the cell theory in biology.

The theory of evolution falls into the second definition of "theory"; it is a hypothesis that has survived the test of time. Darwinian evolution (the theory of evolution via random selection and natura/sexual selection) falls into the first definition of "theory"; it is a broad explanatory paradigm that tries to make sense of a number of evolutionary hypotheses.

This in no way condones pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design" (or what passes for "Biblical Scholarship" these days), but it's important to keep both of these definitions in mind when discussing a "theory".

Laterz.

 

[elder999]

I agree there is evidence but can you explain light to me in the particle and wave and beam and have all three models or theories not contradict one of the others? No, I do not think anyone can.

Actually, I think I can explain it-I just can't prove it.

That's for another thread, though.....

 

[Rich Parsons]

Actually, I think I can explain it-I just can't prove it.

That's for another thread, though.....

I can explain it in the three models as well but I cannot do so with out one asking what about this from one of the other two.


As to global warming, I just wanted to get everything on the list for discussion and then people could make some quantified decisions based upon data on where to go looking to make improvements.

 

[elder999]

I can explain it in the three models as well but I cannot do so with out one asking what about this from one of the other two.


As to global warming, I just wanted to get everything on the list for discussion and then people could make some quantified decisions based upon data on where to go looking to make improvements.

Well, and I meant that I could reconcile all three; I just can't prove it.

No Nobel for me......