Climate change propaganda

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Earth’s Core Has Stopped and May Be Reversing Direction, Study Says
The surprising finding might solve longstanding mysteries about climate and geological phenomena.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgyj...ion-study-says

Of course, it must be noted this is more or less the plot of the 2003 disaster film The Core, but there’s no need to worry about averting an impending apocalypse by nuking the center of Earth. While the core’s rotation influences Earth’s surface environment, scientists think this periodic spin switch is a normal part of its behavior that does not pose risks for life on our planet.

https://www.nature.com/articles/3822...4ddd6c0a82b839


Any of the climate change ‘believers’ care to explain how this is man’s fault?

Sure, easy. It's not man's fault. It also has nothing to do - according to the paper itself - with the climate.

Not to mention the study which suggests surface temperatures are cold enough to freeze polar caps. The problem is the earth’s interior is venting, warming ocean currents traveling to the northern reaches melting ice from the bottom up.

And where can one find this study?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Sure, easy. It's not man's fault. It also has nothing to do - according to the paper itself - with the climate.

Read it again

And where can one find this study?

Look it up it’s online, and I’ve also posted here already in the climate change thread


The point is it isn’t as clear cut as climate change propagandists think. It was just within the last 150 years years ago that we discovered that nether universe or earths crust is not static . Neither is earths climate. Just like in the ancient days when there was a solar eclipse, draught, hurricane, earth quake, lightening people believed it was their fault that made the gods angry. Same as today, the believers blame themselves and go out and try to convert the unbelievers.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

[...] The point is it isn’t as clear cut as climate change propagandists think. It was just within the last 150 years years ago that we discovered that nether universe or earths crust is not static [...]
The point is it isn’t as clear cut as climate change propagandists think.

It is clear despite your or "climate change propagandists' " opinions.

It was just within the last 150 years years ago that we discovered that nether universe or earths crust is not static. Neither is earths climate.

Who said anything here is static? So you do believe the earth's crust is not static despite you not being able to really observe it. What about climate then? The "climate" has been changing all the earth's time alright, but never as quick as it does now.
Last times a climate change lead to mass extinction was a drastic change in the permian (but it took millions of years), and the (most probable theory right now) some asteroid drastically changing the climate fast and drastically, towards the end of the cretaceous.
What we observe now has no comparison in earth's history. When it quacks and walks like a duck, it probably is one.

There could only be two theories that it is not man-made
- one is the sun, but changes in the sun's radiation cycles and 'behaviour' have most probably happened before without what we see now. Our sun is a relatively stable star, even over millions of years.
- another theory could be the earth's magnetic field getting stronger or weaker, the latter might indeed change the sun wind's intensity reaching the earth because it is not being deflected.
But even here the earth's core has changed its direction and revolution several times in earth's history without having much influence on the latter's surface, or climate.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Read it again

Can you point it to me? It is after all, just four pages long. You seem to be sure about it, so let's see where it mentions climate?

Look it up it’s online, and I’ve also posted here already in the climate change thread

That doesn't exactly narrow it down. I'd appreaciate if you could find the study so I can have a look at it. After all, you brought it up.

The point is it isn’t as clear cut as climate change propagandists think.

It is the best explanation available at this time, and it continues to be unless someone can come up with another.

[Rockstar]

So one says there can ONLY be two theories and the other posts Youtube videos and proclaims such things as the best explanation. And that’s what you think science is and should convince everyone else?

[Rockstar]

The best explanation? Not geo thermal venting, not the sun, not milankovc cycles, not earths core. There is so much more to science than it’s all our fault, Greta and YouTube.

[Dowly]

You complain in this very thread that you don't believe in AGW because it is politicized, yet you are the only one in this thread politicizing it.

Most of this thread is just you projecting onto others what you are doing yourself. Politicizing, blind belief, bad science and on and on.

[Rockstar]

I’m just asking questions and making statements admittedly mockingly at times though not directed at any one person.. But in no way projecting. But if after what I wrote you insist I’m projecting. Then I would insist you are in denial.

[ChristopherTarana]

It's very simple so simple, Albert Gore should have figured it out before his book! The sun is getting older! The sun is getting bigger! The sun is getting hotter!


Christopher Tarana

[Rockstar]

Believe it or not it sure beats anything Wikipedia and Greta has to say.


Drift of Earth's Pole Confirms Groundwater Depletion as a Significant Contributor to Global Sea Level Rise 1993–2010

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2023GL103509

Abstract
Climate model estimates show significant groundwater depletion during the 20th century, consistent with global mean sea level (GMSL) budget analysis. However, prior to the Argo float era, in the early 2000’s, there is little information about steric sea level contributions to GMSL, making the role of groundwater depletion in this period less certain. We show that a useful constraint is found in observed polar motion (PM). In the period 1993–2010, we find that predicted PM excitation trends estimated from various sources of surface mass loads and the estimated glacial isostatic adjustment agree very well with the observed. Among many contributors to the PM excitation trend, groundwater storage changes are estimated to be the second largest (4.36 cm/yr) toward 64.16°E. Neglecting groundwater effects, the predicted trend differs significantly from the observed. PM observations may also provide a tool for studying historical continental scale water storage variations.

Key Points
Earth's pole has drifted toward 64.16°E at a speed of 4.36 cm/yr during 1993–2010 due to groundwater depletion and resulting sea level rise

Including groundwater depletion effects, the estimated drift of Earth's rotational pole agrees remarkably well with observations

Plain Language Summary
Melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers has been understood as a main cause of sea level rise associated with contemporary climate warming. It has been proposed that an important anthropogenic contribution is sea level rise due to groundwater depletion resulting from irrigation. A climate model estimate for the period 1993–2010 gives total groundwater depletion of 2,150 GTon, equivalent to global sea level rise of 6.24 mm. However, direct observational evidence supporting this estimate has been lacking. In this study, we show that the model estimate of water redistribution from aquifers to the oceans would result in a drift of Earth's rotational pole, about 78.48 cm toward 64.16°E. In combination with other well-understood sources of water redistribution, such as melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers, good agreement with PM observations serves as an independent confirmation of the groundwater depletion model estimate.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

the other posts Youtube videos and proclaims such things as the best explanation.

I said nothing about the video I posted. Stop misrepresenting what I said.

You are wholly welcome to provide alternate theories to explain the changing climate.

But of course, you don't. Because you don't have any.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The best explanation? Not geo thermal venting, not the sun, not milankovc cycles, not earths core. There is so much more to science than it’s all our fault, Greta and YouTube.

Then show the studies and we can all have a look at them together.

[Rockstar]

Read again, I just did, geo thermal venting, sun cycles, milankovic cycles, and now a group suggested the earths core.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Read again, I just did, geo thermal venting, sun cycles, milankovic cycles, and now a group suggested the earths core.

Ok, great! So, which one is it? Or is it all those things combined? How do they explain the rapid warming over the past century or so? Since you are so keen to believe anything but human made climate change, surely you can explain at least one of those theories. Right?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Read again, I just did, geo thermal venting, sun cycles, milankovic cycles, and now a group suggested the earths core.

How could the 'net post something wrong. I mean you still need a bit of common sense?
- Thermal venting - bs
- Milankovic cycles happened before w/o the earth atmosphere's temperature rising (geological record for everybody to see)
- earth's core? I already wrote that the earth's core changes spin and direction all the time, more than ten thousand times in earth's history. While the sun's radiation is being deflected more or less by the force of earth's magnetic fields (which seems to be influenced by the relative motion of the earth's core within the earth's outer shell/crust) it never had an impact. It is not visible light or the temperature wavelength anyway that is being hampered by magnetic fields, but other wavelengths.