Will this be the Excuse when the Global Warming Doom Fails to Surface in Coming Years

[mal]

Will this be the Excuse when the Global Warming Doom Fails to Surface in Coming Years?

Chile earthquake may have shortened days
Seventh strongest quake in recorded history may have shifted Earth's axis

updated 8:11 a.m. MT, Tues., March. 2, 2010

The massive 8.8 earthquake that struck Chile may have changed the entire Earth's rotation and shortened the length of days on our planet, a NASA scientist said Monday.

The quake, the seventh strongest earthquake in recorded history, hit Chile Saturday and should have shortened the length of an Earth day by 1.26 milliseconds, according to research scientist Richard Gross at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Chile earthquake may have shortened days - Space.com- msnbc.com

---

Wouldn't Surprise me...

"You know, Experts are estimating that the Earthquake in Chile in 2010 might have just shifted the Earth enough that it saved us from Global Warming..."

I'm not sayin' this is what they will do, but if they do...



peace...

 

[Old Rocks]

Shortened by a micro second or so BFD.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

OH yee of little faith....

The Apocalypse is coming! Listen to the words of the profit, and repent your sins of greed and sloth and bow over and worship at the alter.

The sins of man will be cleansed away in the heat of the future.

The profit has spoken, do not fail to heed the words of the profit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, watch the coming years.

You are stating that nothing is going to happen. I state that the warming will bring changes that will be damaging to agriculture and the energy infrastructure. Damaging enough that we will see major increases in the cost of both. And shortages of both, even in rich nations.

 

[mal]

Well, watch the coming years.

You are stating that nothing is going to happen. I state that the warming will bring changes that will be damaging to agriculture and the energy infrastructure. Damaging enough that we will see major increases in the cost of both. And shortages of both, even in rich nations.

Prices are going to Increase?... Populations will grow?...

Helluva Prediction there... We could go into an Ice Age and it would be FAR Worse.

There has been NO Global Warming Documented in over 10 Years... Since that one El Nino back in the Late 90's...

And even at that... The 50... Maybe 100 Years of Relatively Respectable Record Keeping, is still so Incomplete and Inconsistent, and not a Reflection of 100's of Millions of Years, that it's Silly for ANYONE to be Predicting ANYTHING Off of it.



peace....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, watch the coming years.

You are stating that nothing is going to happen. I state that the warming will bring changes that will be damaging to agriculture and the energy infrastructure. Damaging enough that we will see major increases in the cost of both. And shortages of both, even in rich nations.

And yet we have seen no warming since 1998. Go figure.

 

[mal]

Well, watch the coming years.

You are stating that nothing is going to happen. I state that the warming will bring changes that will be damaging to agriculture and the energy infrastructure. Damaging enough that we will see major increases in the cost of both. And shortages of both, even in rich nations.

And yet we have seen no warming since 1998. Go figure.

Fact... And that's with Skewed Data from "Experts" who were REALLY Tying to Illustrate Warming!...



peace...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

All i know is in the 80's I was told, in school, that if we didn't fix the environment the ice caps would be melted by the year 2000. Why are they growing now?

 

[mal]

All i know is in the 80's I was told, in school, that if we didn't fix the environment the ice caps would be melted by the year 2000. Why are they growing now?

Well... It's an algore Paradise...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/humor/97086-algores-midnight-sun.html#post2058582



peace...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrc1XZayp4]YouTube - Al Gore--Ball of Fire![/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cElkco-hDk]YouTube - Al Gore-Horibble World[/ame]

i have one about windmills on the harddrive, maybe i'll make a video

 

[sherp]

Well, watch the coming years.

You are stating that nothing is going to happen. I state that the warming will bring changes that will be damaging to agriculture and the energy infrastructure. Damaging enough that we will see major increases in the cost of both. And shortages of both, even in rich nations.

Of course, the climate has been changing slowly forever although from what I have read when we went into an Ice Age, it happened on the turn of a dime. Its that "people" and their CO2 they breathe out causes the change that is the debate. That little scheme to use grain to power cars cost a terrible increase in cereals, pasta, etc. That did not help.

 

[Care4all]

the 2004 tsunami/earthquake, changed time as we knew it, also...knocked axis

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Were it snowing at the equator, were it possible to walk on ice from the south pole to the north, they would still insist it was because of human caused global warming.

Global Warming Hockey sticks are coming, so saith Algore the Sublime, the profit of the new apocalypse.


I don't see how it could possibly matter for anything this minor. Not unless there were some weird change in convection there.

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds like more leap years would be a better prediction. Anyone got a good explanation how an earthquake speeds the rotation of the earth? Vibration? Weight shift? Rotational shift? Did we move closer to the sun? That would be global warming right?

 

[editec]

Don't any of us find it more than just a little disconcerting that SCIENCE cannot come down definitively on such questions as whether ice caps and glaciers are melting?

One would think that is rather obvious and not subject to debate.

Now personally, I don't know, since this is not field, but I find it rather alarming that in this day and age, we are still subject to a debate about something that should be obvious.

Here's what I think, just based on logic.

SOMEBODY is lying.

So the question for we laymen is.

Who is lying and why?

Now we laymen cannot know for sure, so we have no choice BUT to ask ourselves

WHO IS MOTIVATED TO LIE AND WHAT IS MOTIVATING THEM TO LIE?

My reasoning leads me to think that academics who get paid regardless of whether the earth is weirding out or not, have no motivation to lie.

OTOH, academics who get paid through foundations which are funded by dirty industries DO have a motivation to lie.

Now some of you make the argument that the global warming is happening academics are motivated by organizations which are seeking to shut down those industries.

What financial motivation do these think tanks have to do this?

Seriously, I cannot think of any motivation to lie about this.

If you can connect the dots that show me the motivation to lie about Global warning, I am receptive to that argument, but so far, nobody has.

So on one hand. I find that most of the NO global warming academics are funded by industries with a motivation to lie, and on the other hand I find that Yes, Global warming is real academics do not get funded from any souces that serve to gain anything by lieing about this question.

So tell me again...what is the motivation for a scientist to lie about gliobal warming?

Who is paying them to lie about this and why are those people paying them to lie to us?

Can any of you who ARE CONVINCED that Global Warming is not happening, give me narrative that makes sense for WHY they are lieing?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

We know who is lying. We have their emails proving they are lying.

And do you realize how much money the UN passes out on this scam, how much money they pay out? The scammers are getting very rich on your tax money

 

[del]

Don't any of us find it more than just a little disconcerting that SCIENCE cannot come down definitively on such questions as whether ice caps and glaciers are melting?

One would think that is rather obvious and not subject to debate.

Now personally, I don't know, since this is not field, but I find it rather alarming that in this day and age, we are still subject to a debate about something that should be obvious.

Here's what I think, just based on logic.

SOMEBODY is lying.

So the question for we laymen is.

Who is lying and why?

Now we laymen cannot know for sure, so we have no choice BUT to ask ourselves

WHO IS MOTIVATED TO LIE AND WHAT IS MOTIVATING THEM TO LIE?

My reasoning leads me to think that academics who get paid regardless of whether the earth is weirding out or not, have no motivation to lie.

OTOH, academics who get paid through foundations which are funded by dirty industries DO have a motivation to lie.

Now some of you make the argument that the global warming is happening academics are motivated by organizations which are seeking to shut down those industries.

What financial motivation do these think tanks have to do this?

Seriously, I cannot think of any motivation to lie about this.

If you can connect the dots that show me the motivation to lie about Global warning, I am receptive to that argument, but so far, nobody has.

So on one hand. I find that most of the NO global warming academics are funded by industries with a motivation to lie, and on the other hand I find that Yes, Global warming is real academics do not get funded from any souces that serve to gain anything by lieing about this question.

So tell me again...what is the motivation for a scientist to lie about gliobal warming?

Who is paying them to lie about this and why are those people paying them to lie to us?

Can any of you who ARE CONVINCED that Global Warming is not happening, give me narrative that makes sense for WHY they are lieing?

i'm not convince global warming isn't happening, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if it was. the key here is is human activity the major vector causing change? i remain unconvinced.

i won't bore you with links to the various examples of lying, fraud and other malfeasance by some members of the AGW sect. i'm sure you've seen them or heard of them a million times. god knows they've been posted here at least that many times.

i think the motivation for scientists who have engaged in this type of activity comes down to the most simple of human motivations, and that is the almost overwhelming need to feed the ego. we all want to be right 100% of the time and we all want to be the center of attention. feeding the ego is every bit as powerful a motivator as cash, probably even moreso.

i believe we are stewards of our planet and should do everything possible to conserve existing and discover new sources of energy, but i remain adamant that scams such as carbon credits and cap and trade do nothing of the sort.

 

[Charles Stucker]

What financial motivation do these think tanks have to do this?

Seriously, I cannot think of any motivation to lie about this.

Perhaps you should work on that.
Reasons to "create" facts supporting GoreBull warming.
1) Political career enhancement - Al Gore got a huge poost in his political viability (not to mention a Nobel Prize) by paying someone to give him "academic" support for GoreBull warming.
2) Government growth - all the regulations resulting fomr GoreBull warming studies equate to more government power, which appeals to all the politicians who wield said power.
3) Fifteen minutes of fame - academics who publish papers about climatology are not well known. Unless they start spouting a message which could get them noticed. Like "the sky is falling."

Three reasons as quick as that. Why don't you try and exercise your brain to think of a few more?

 

[edthecynic]

Well, watch the coming years.

You are stating that nothing is going to happen. I state that the warming will bring changes that will be damaging to agriculture and the energy infrastructure. Damaging enough that we will see major increases in the cost of both. And shortages of both, even in rich nations.

Prices are going to Increase?... Populations will grow?...

Helluva Prediction there... We could go into an Ice Age and it would be FAR Worse.

There has been NO Global Warming Documented in over 10 Years... Since that one El Nino back in the Late 90's...

And even at that... The 50... Maybe 100 Years of Relatively Respectable Record Keeping, is still so Incomplete and Inconsistent, and not a Reflection of 100's of Millions of Years, that it's Silly for ANYONE to be Predicting ANYTHING Off of it.



peace....

Well, watch the coming years.

You are stating that nothing is going to happen. I state that the warming will bring changes that will be damaging to agriculture and the energy infrastructure. Damaging enough that we will see major increases in the cost of both. And shortages of both, even in rich nations.

And yet we have seen no warming since 1998. Go figure.

Fact... And that's with Skewed Data from "Experts" who were REALLY Tying to Illustrate Warming!...



peace...

You fools are obsessed with this LIE!

Even Roy Spencer of UAH , a denier and Stuttering LimpTard's climatologist who was already caught skewing the satellite data to illustrate cooling with his partner John Christy, had to admit we've been warming the last decade, which was the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Lower Troposphere

Current Month
These temperatures are for the lowest 8 km (5 miles) of the atmosphere. Information on the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) sources of troposphere data is available.

January Anomaly Rank
(out of 32 years) Second Warmest Year on Record

Trend UAH low-trop +0.72°C/+1.30°F warmest 2007 (+0.59°C/+1.06°F)* +0.18°C/decade

RSS low-trop +0.64°C/+1.15°F warmest 2007 (+0.59°C/+1.06°F)* +0.18°C/decade

Temperature Trends

During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.06°C/decade (0.11°F/decade), but this trend has increased to a rate of approximately 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F/decade) during the past 30 years. There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976. Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next century with continued increases of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Temperature measurements have also been made above the Earth's surface over the past 52 years using balloon-borne instruments (radiosondes) and for the past 30 years using satellites. These measurements support the analyses of trends and variability in the troposphere (surface to 10-16 km) and stratosphere (10-50 km above the earth's surface).



RATPAC and Surface plot
The best source of upper air in-situ measurements for studying global temperature trends above the surface is the Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC) dataset.
Data collected and averaged between the 850-300 mb levels (approximately 5,000 to 30,000 feet above the surface) indicate that 1958-2009 global temperature trends in the middle troposphere are similar to trends in surface temperature; 0.12°C/decade (0.22°F/decade) for surface and 0.15°C/decade (0.26°F/decade) for mid-troposphere. Since 1976, mid-troposphere temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.17°C/decade (0.31°F/decade). For 2009, global mid-troposphere temperatures were 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 1971-2000 mean and the seventh warmest.
Since 1979, NOAA's polar orbiting satellite measurements have also been used to measure temperatures in the troposphere and stratosphere. Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) data are analyzed for NOAA by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), Remote Sensing Systems (RSS, Santa Rosa, California) and the University of Washington (UW). These observations show that the global average temperature in the middle troposphere (the layer which is centered at an altitude of 2 to 6 miles, but which includes the lower stratosphere) has increased
References

Christy, John R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric Temperatures: Dataset Construction and Radiosonde Comparisons. J. of Atmos. and Oceanic Technology, 17, 1153-1170.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What financial motivation do these think tanks have to do this?

Seriously, I cannot think of any motivation to lie about this.

Perhaps you should work on that.
Reasons to "create" facts supporting GoreBull warming.
1) Political career enhancement - Al Gore got a huge poost in his political viability (not to mention a Nobel Prize) by paying someone to give him "academic" support for GoreBull warming.
2) Government growth - all the regulations resulting fomr GoreBull warming studies equate to more government power, which appeals to all the politicians who wield said power.
3) Fifteen minutes of fame - academics who publish papers about climatology are not well known. Unless they start spouting a message which could get them noticed. Like "the sky is falling."

Three reasons as quick as that. Why don't you try and exercise your brain to think of a few more?

Government growth, control, and taxing the crap out of people (thus increasing their spending pool) being numero uno reason.