This doesn't fit very well with the human induced Global Warming Theory

[YukonGlocker]

https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Interesting read

More interesting reading:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-basic.htm
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/volcanoes-still-not-source-increasing-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

[Dave70968]

very interesting read. in addition the quake that took out the japanese nuke plant knocked the planet 1.5 degrees (from memory so don't condemn me if my remcaller isn't accurate) off axis...seems things the planet does, all on it's own, really makes it in control. and we think we can stop the planet from doing whatever it wants to do thru some puny attempt or a paris accord. what a hoot

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...thquake-shifted-earth-axis-shorter-day-nasa/1

The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that ravaged Japan also shortened Earth's day by just over one-millionth of a second (1.8 microseconds to be exact), according to NASA. It also shifted the Earth's axis by about 6.5 inches.
...
The quake also shifted the position of the Earth's "figure" axis (which is different from the planet's north-south axis). This shift in Earth's figure axis will cause Earth to wobble a bit differently as it rotates, but it won't cause a shift of the Earth's axis in space -- only external forces such as the gravitational attraction of the sun, moon and planets could do that.
...
"The position of Earth's figure axis also changes all the time, by about 3.3 feet over the course of a year, or about six times more than the change that should have been caused by the Japan quake."

Earth's radius is approximately 251 million inches; a shift of 6.5" is about 1.5 * 10^-6 degrees. Don't worry, you were only off by a factor of one million. And it's not a shift of the average axial position, just a change in the wobble; nothing on earth could cause a net change (as the above article notes). Close enough for government work, as they say.

Incidentally, there's this nifty research tool at your fingertips that makes the Great Library at Alexandria look like a comic-book shop. It's called "Google;" perhaps you've heard of it.

 

[lasher]

and of courese we all know google has no bias at all LOL

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

livescience.com is a well know, and proven, scam site that ignores real science. So, a perfect site for right-wingers.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

and of courese we all know google has no bias at all LOL

You do know that Google does not produce the content, they just...never mind. Why bother. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[emapples]

livescience.com is a well know, and proven, scam site that ignores real science. So, a perfect site for right-wingers.

If only we could all be blessed with your liberal elitist world view. Don't you have an old Obama calendar you can jerk off to ? Maybe some Bernie porn? Either way you should go back to doing your favorite thing instead of you second favorite thing which is blessing us with you unfailing wisdom

 

[Dave70968]

and of courese we all know google has no bias at all LOL

So...how does Google's bias affect the radius of the earth? Does it make the reported number bigger or smaller? Or does it just affect the conversion from miles to inches?

Oh, I know, it chooses which NASA report to give; a different search engine--one with a conservative bias--would give us the NASA report that says the shift was 100 miles instead of 6.5", right?

Seriously, if you're okay being off by a factor of a million because you're too damned lazy to do thirty seconds' worth of research--and then dismiss verifiable numerical facts not really subject to interpretation as "biased," well, I think that tells us all everything we need to know about your credibility.

 

[lasher]

hey ahole, i said i was remcalling in the original post. and what will you do if we kabosh fossil fuels? there will be no ambulances to chase

 

[dennishoddy]

Agreed that eventually fossil fuels will probably go away on their own, no matter what, but the key difference between Liberals and Conservatives on this is that Liberals love to ignore basic economic forces in an effort to craft their own more "ideal" circumstances. Instead of waiting for natural economic forces like supply/demand and attendant cost adjustments to make alternative sources economically competitive, a select group of "experts" want decide what is best for the economy and then ordain which fuels may be used and how and when. Right now, the only way for most alternative sources to be even close to competing is via massive subsidies - that's not a long term sustainable solution.

Follow the money, Follow the money.

 

[Dave70968]

hey ahole, i said i was remcalling in the original post. and what will you do if we kabosh fossil fuels? there will be no ambulances to chase

1) You choose "remcall" a figure, even when you could find an accurate number in about thirty seconds with tools already at your fingertips
2) You use that figure to support an argument; moreover, an argument that has its grounding in science, which is all about verifying or disproving facts
3) You get called on your bull, with some very simple math that shows you off by a factor of a million times
4) Rather than admit your error, you say "hurr-durr, your facts are biased!"
5) You get butthurt when challenged on your claim of bias, claiming your laziness justifies your wrongness
6) You double down by slinging an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the factual issue

Yeah, I'm okay with condemning you and considering these facts as I assess your (total lack of) credibility in anything you say in the future. Also, I'm not that kind of lawyer, but, again, facts obviously mean nothing to you; you've made your decisions, and by-gawd, you're going to stick to them, facts be damned!