[LightStarr]

Thats good Bart, I wouldn't say that though. Those crazy hippies will crucify you. But then when they realize they need wood to make the cross, they might just fuck off.

[PluggyRug]

I wonder if this has any bearing on GW.

The Chandler wobble is a small variation in Earth's axis of rotation, discovered by American astronomer Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. It amounts to 0.7 arcseconds over a period of 433 days. In other words, Earth's poles move in an irregular circle of 3 to 15 metres in diameter, in an oscillation. This is in addition to the precession of the equinoxes, a larger oscillation which takes over 25,000 years to complete.

The wobble's diameter has varied since discovery, reaching its most extreme range recorded to date in 1910. The cause is unknown: barring any external force, the wobble should have eventually subsided. Originally it was believed that the wobble was caused by seasonal weather fluctuations causing shifts in atmospheric mass distribution, or possible geophysical movement beneath Earth's crust. On 18 July 2000, however, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that "the principal cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, caused by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans."[1]

The Chandler wobble is a factor considered by satellite navigation systems (especially military systems). It is also claimed to be the cause of major tectonic activity, including earthquakes, volcanism, El Niño, and global warming phenomenon, however there is no actual data which supports such a claim.

During the first hour of the national radio broadcast of Coast to Coast AM on January 28, 2006, Lloyd Stewart Carpenter reported that the Chandler wobble had stopped (i.e. its amplitude had reduced to zero) and that it could be a harbinger of a catastrophic pole shift. In fact there was a near six week period in which a significant pause occurred. This was first noted by the International Earth Rotation Service on or about January 5, 2006 as the path of the wobble, usually a widening or tightening spiral depending on the depth of the cycle, made a 90° departure from its predicted track. It proceeded to cease any substantial movement until on or about February 11th when the wobble appeared to begin tracing a path back toward its normal route. This anomaly has been of great interest in gaining a better understanding, but it is not yet known if this has or will cause any catastrophic changes in the overall rotation axis of the planet.

The Chandler wobble changes over time, with U.S. Navy data over the past several years showing the wobble has diminished as of mid-late 2005. However, this is likely transient, as the wobble has increased and decreased many times in the past and will likely do so a great many more times in the future.

Source

[BartSimpson]

LightStarr LightStarr:

Thats good Bart, I wouldn't say that though. Those crazy hippies will crucify you. But then when they realize they need wood to make the cross, they might just fuck off.

[BartSimpson]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

The Chandler Wobble

STOP THE WOBBLE!!!!

[bossdog]

That was easily one of the best articles I have read in a long time!

So now that I don't have to buy an electric car, when will smoking and drinking going to be good for you again?

[LightStarr]

Does the wobble lead into the Poles changing places? They do that every so often do they not?

Mind you, again there is not really enough data to back up all this. We can guess and change how we do things, but really the earth is six billionish years old. So what do we really know about it?

[BartSimpson]

bossdog bossdog:

That was easily one of the best articles I have read in a long time!

So now that I don't have to buy an electric car, when will smoking and drinking going to be good for you again?

Smoking and drinking are good for you. Just ask anyone who collects the taxes on tobacco and liquor and they'll tell you so.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think there is a scientific conclusion that the warming was definitely caused by humans. It's hard to get a scietnist to say "definitely." It implies certainty, and certainty doesn't exist in science, except as an ideal. There is a good many scientists who think it is quite probable that we are changing the climate. I agree with them.

Is the earth warming a good thing, necessarily? I'm not sure I agree with that logic. I think the adaptation costs for climate change are going to be quite expensive economically and destabilizing geopolitically.

Since the earth is cooler than it's historical average what do you propose we do to keep it cool?

And why should we interfere in a natural process?

It depends what you mean by historical average. For the first chunk of time the earth was a ball of molten rock, so I imagine the temperature was pretty high. Does that factor into the average?

I just don't think it necessarily follows that a warmer climate is an unmitigated good. The right-wing floated that trial balloon for a while, but didn't stick with it long. You'd have a hard time convincing those affected by the pine beetle infestation in BC that climate change is a good thing.

And I think the whole point about anthropogenic climate change is that the change isn't natural. If you did want to keep it cool, you could launch aerosols into the atmosphere. There have been a number of mechanisms proposed, none of which are probably all that practical--maybe doable, but probably not that practical.

[Bodah]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hey, I'm not asking climate change to be taken as an article of faith by anyone. I'm just talking about the science. Why is it that when presented with endlessly deatiled reports providing strong evidence that the climate is changing, the ideological right chose not to believe it, and then, based on a few grains of evidence regarding the Red Spot on Jupiter they are suddenly convinced that global warming is real.

As one of those "ideological right" people I've never denied that the earth is warming. I've pointed out that it has been warming for the last 15,000 years or so. That's why when you walk out your front door you don't have a few kilometres of ice over your head as there once was.

What I dispute is the "scientific" conclusion that global warming is somehow something new that was definitely caused by humanity.

What I dispute is the human arrogance that we somehow have a right to a stable climate when, in fact, such a thing would not be natural.

What I dispute are the anti-capitalists who always seem to be behind climate change discussions and who always seem to ignore any pollution that is created by their communist or socialist friends in China or the Third World.

What I dispute are the liberals who loathe and hate Western Civilization and who are using climate change as a tool to attack our culture, our ecomomies, and our national security.

But is the earth warming? Sure it is. And it's a good thing it is unless you want Canada back under that ice sheet of a few thousand years ago.

What he said ^

Set your watches, because in 2017 there will be a new environmental scare.

Every ten years there's some new scare, Eco-hysteria has proven to be a lucrative industry, based on flimsy science. What a waste of energy it would be to be worried about all of this bullshit just to have the planet destroyed by a giant fucking asteroid in 2055. Mother Nature would be saying hahaha, fooled you's all !!!!

Maybe those nukes will come in handy after all

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

I The cause is unknown: barring any external force, the wobble should have eventually subsided.

Why would the wobble subside (barring external force)?

[Zipperfish]

Bodah Bodah:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Hey, I'm not asking climate change to be taken as an article of faith by anyone. I'm just talking about the science. Why is it that when presented with endlessly deatiled reports providing strong evidence that the climate is changing, the ideological right chose not to believe it, and then, based on a few grains of evidence regarding the Red Spot on Jupiter they are suddenly convinced that global warming is real.

As one of those "ideological right" people I've never denied that the earth is warming. I've pointed out that it has been warming for the last 15,000 years or so. That's why when you walk out your front door you don't have a few kilometres of ice over your head as there once was.

What I dispute is the "scientific" conclusion that global warming is somehow something new that was definitely caused by humanity.

What I dispute is the human arrogance that we somehow have a right to a stable climate when, in fact, such a thing would not be natural.

What I dispute are the anti-capitalists who always seem to be behind climate change discussions and who always seem to ignore any pollution that is created by their communist or socialist friends in China or the Third World.

What I dispute are the liberals who loathe and hate Western Civilization and who are using climate change as a tool to attack our culture, our ecomomies, and our national security.

But is the earth warming? Sure it is. And it's a good thing it is unless you want Canada back under that ice sheet of a few thousand years ago.

What he said ^

Set your watches, because in 2017 there will be a new environmental scare.

Every ten years there's some new scare, Eco-hysteria has proven to be a lucrative industry, based on flimsy science. What a waste of energy it would be to be worried about all of this bullshit just to have the planet destroyed by a giant fucking asteroid in 2055. Mother Nature would be saying hahaha, fooled you's all !!!!

Maybe those nukes will come in handy after all

So for you and Bart, it's not so much a scientific issue as much as a political issue, I guess.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So for you and Bart, it's not so much a scientific issue as much as a political issue, I guess.

Correct.

I personally don't care that the weather is going to change because that's normal.

What I see is that a host of people on the left who also really don't care one bit about the weather are using the issue as a tool to advance their agendas.

Case in point: Algore who thinks that YOU should 'think globally and act locally' while he doesn't do JACK about reducing his own very sizable contributions to 'global warming'.

That's because he doesn't really believe it himself and he laughs all the way to the bank with the money from the stooges who paid to see his stupid movie.

If it really were as bad as he says he'd be living life a lot differently.

The fact that he isn't tells me it isn't that bad.

Or that it isn't at all.

[Zipperfish]

I think the first five words of your response said it all.

[juggernaut]

LightStarr LightStarr:

Dude, we should totally drop giant ice cubs inthe water, thereby creating huge Tsunami waves, wiping out our enemies!

who's are enemies? U.S.A? Britain?

[DrCaleb]

LightStarr LightStarr:

Does the wobble lead into the Poles changing places? They do that every so often do they not?

No, the poles don't swap, the Magnetic Poles swap. Magnetic North will become Magnetic North (if that doesn't sound quite right, remember the North pole is Magnetic South right now), and vice versa, every 60,000 to 100,000 years or so. The orientation of the Earth won't change.

The process is caused by the molten core rotating, and that rotation changes. When the poles reverse, (in theory anyway) there will become many (10 or more) Magnetic North and Magnetic South poles that will change rapidly in the span of 50 - 100 years.