The global Warming conspiracy

[John Cuthber]

Joeman

It seems you have spent 30 years looking at this idea.

I will see that 30 years and raise you 4000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

Still taking bets?

[joeman]

The difference isn't "a few miles". It actually adds up to about 1745 km (1084.3 miles). That's a 15 degree difference, which is huge compared to your original 26 degrees. And to be frank, the numbers don't add up to 26 degrees anywhere. At all. If this is "child's play", it should be easy to answer, so please do.

Okay, you still don't get it. I'll try to make it as elementary as possible. IN this instance it not important how far the axis has moved. What's important in this instance is when you add the additional 26 degree shift in earth's axis with the other anomalies it suggest earth's orbit around the sun is destabilizing, sir.

 

The normal position of the earth's axis was 23.5 degrees, and now it has moved to 49.5 degrees, and that a difference of 26 degree, which is about a thousand mile, or so increase from its original position.

 

On another note, I've always found that the most credible science is communicated using massive, multi-colored, and arbitrarily changing fonts.

You made it clear you don't agree with the evidence, I appreciate your time, sir.

 

Joeman

It seems you have spent 30 years looking at this idea.

I will see that 30 years and raise you 4000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

Still taking bets?

I fail to see the relationship stone hinge has with global warming? And be careful carbon dating is not an exact science. Carbon dating is based in conjecture.

Edited February 21, 2013 by joeman

[John Cuthber]

For a start, learn some maths. 26 degrees is about 1800 miles, but that's hardly the point. If the poles + equator had moved that much then, just for a start, your satellite dish would be pointing in the wrong direction.

Seriously, how come Stonehenge still lines up with the sun at the Solstice?

How come Sundials still face the sun, just like they did when they were installed?

[pwagen]

The normal position of the earth's axis was 23.5 degrees, and now it has moved to 49.5 degrees, and that a difference of 26 degree, which is about a thousand mile, or so increase from its original position.

You give 4 sources for the 49.5 degrees. None of them says the Earth is leaning that much. One of them talks about the effects of such a shift, but that's as close as it gets. I looked through your sources for all of your claims, and, amusingly, none of them support your theories.

 

Coupled with your thread on evolution, I can only agree that you're not being serious, and any discussion would be utterly pointless.

[joeman]

You give 4 sources for the 49.5 degrees. None of them says the Earth is leaning that much. One of them talks about the effects of such a shift, but that's as close as it gets. I looked through your sources for all of your claims, and, amusingly, none of them support your theories.

 

Coupled with your thread on evolution, I can only agree that you're not being serious, and any discussion would be utterly pointless.

The website below supports my views, and my observation of the weather in the southern part of the northern hemisphere tell me this region of the planet has tilted towards the sun, and is exposed to it. I find the website below to be valid. If you all don't agree you can block this thread like the the other thread, I don't care life goes on.

 

http://www.divulgence.net/

 

P.S. You all can't deny the other anomalies.

Edited February 21, 2013 by joeman

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

joeman, your sources are extremely questionable and biased. In the Speculations section, you're obligated to address questions put to you and you must provide supportive evidence for the assertions you're making. So far, you're not fulfilling your obligations.

 

Your other thread was locked because creationist garbage against evolution has been refuted many times, and no one feels like banging their heads against the wall of your ignorance and lack of reason. Your arguments against AGW are proceeding in a similar fashion. Please address the questions and replies you're graciously being given instead of ignoring them.

[joeman]

Coupled with your thread on evolution, I can only agree that you're not being serious, and any discussion would be utterly pointless

 

 

REPLY: You all closed it without debate. I express my views on other group, and you'll be surprise on how many people agree with me. Its childish to close a thread on the ground the moderator disagree with it. You may not agree, but other may agree, don't their views count, or only the view of the moderator count? the whole thing is just silly, and childish.

 

It remind my of a little boy playing in a sands box, and he want let the other children play with his toy, because they don't agree with him, really could you get anymore silly.

 

Oh, its not about banging anyone's head if anyone disagree, then simply don't respond

Edited February 21, 2013 by joeman

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Hi Joeman,

Your other thread was closed because we've had the argument too many times and you present no new evidence.

This thread seems to be going the same way, please follow the speculation rules, answer questions and provide real evidence. I'd start with adressing stonehenge.

Do not reply to this or any other modnote, either pm a staff member or use the report post feature.

[John Cuthber]

Seriously, how come Stonehenge still lines up with the sun at the Solstice?

[joeman]

joeman, your sources are extremely questionable and biased. In the Speculations section, you're obligated to address questions put to you and you must provide supportive evidence for the assertions you're making. So far, you're not fulfilling your obligations.

 

REPLY: I CAN PROVE SCIENTIFIC ACCOUNTS, AFTER ACCOUNT THAT GREENHOUSE GASES IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING, WANT TO SEE MY EVIDENCE, OR THE TRUTH DOESN'T INTEREST YOU?

 

MY VIEWS ON EVOLUTION ARE FACTS. HUMAN, AND ANIMALS HAVE SIMILAR GENES, BECAUSE THOSE GENES ARE NEEDED TO BREATHE THE AIR, DRINK THE WATER, AND EAT THE VEGETATION ON THIS PARTICULAR PLANET, NOT BECAUSE ANIMALS, AND HUMANS EVOLVE FROM ONE ANOTHER, AND THAT'S A FACT. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERN THE MATTER IS CLOSED.

[Phi for All]

MY VIEWS ON EVOLUTION ARE FACTS. HUMAN, AND ANIMALS HAVE SIMILAR GENES, BECAUSE THOSE GENES ARE NEEDED TO BREATHE THE AIR, DRINK THE WATER, AND EAT THE VEGETATION ON THIS PARTICULAR PLANET, NOT BECAUSE ANIMALS, AND HUMANS EVOLVE FROM ONE ANOTHER, AND THAT'S A FACT. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERN THE MATTER IS CLOSED.

 

!

Moderator Note

If you're not here to learn, then you're here only to preach, and that's against our rules. Is there any reason we need you here at all?

[SamBridge]

Its because they believe greenhouse gases is the caused for global warming. They are set in their ways.

 

This is a battle for the lives of everyone on this planet. One side is saying global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, and the other side is saying global warming is caused by the earth's orbit around the sun destabilizing. One thing you better understand if I lose everyone loses in the future.

Believe me I'm all for saving the future that's why I'm researching technology to that will stop meteors as well as help terrestrial species when our galaxy collides with Andromeda but I don't think Earth's destabilizing orbit is a large factor in global temperature increase.

[Arete]

OK - So Macchi Picchu was constructed before the 15th century AD.

 

The temple of the sun was desinged in such a manner so during the June Solstice, the sun shines through a temple window and aligns with both the boulder within and the tip of a nearby mountain peak.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080619-solstice-facts_2.html

 

Still seems to work in 2012:

 

 

Seems to unequivocally disprove a 26 degree shift int he Earth's axis, at least in the last ~500 years or so.

 

 

MY VIEWS ON EVOLUTION ARE FACTS. NONSENSICAL

 

So far, you've only supported them with appeal to ridicule and strawmen, so I'd say your views on evolution are logically devoid.

 

Both components of your argument are not actually a challenge to evolutionary theory, and each are actually encompassed, or even complimentary to its support.

 

a) conserved functional genes across broad organismal groups is actually evidence for common ancestry, not against.

 

b) Intra-population divergence, rather than being contrary to evolutionary theory, is a fundamental component thereof. Variation at the level of the individual is essential to the process.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Arete

[joeman]

[Modnote] Hi Joeman,

 

Your other thread was closed because we've had the argument too many times and you present no new evidence.

 

This thread seems to be going the same way, please follow the speculation rules, answer questions and provide real evidence. I'd start with adressing stonehenge.

 

Do not reply to this or any other modnote, either pm a staff member or use the report post feature. [/Modnot

 

Seriously, how come Stonehenge still lines up with the sun at the Solstice?

One gentlemen ask you a similar question. He ask, " If the earth has shifted on it axis, then why is the sun still directly over head".

REPLY; You all forget the sun is hundreds of millions of times larger, than earth a few degree movement, or a thousand mile movement of earth is not going to real register where the sun is concern, you need to find a smaller object in the sky.

This 26 degree additional shift in earth's axis effect the seasons. Look for seasonal deviation in the climate. The 26 degree shift in earth axis has expose the southern part of the northern hemisphere to the sun, and the winters here are warm, and sunny.

 

the earth is too large to use as a marker. a 26 degree shift will still expose your area to the sun.

Believe me I'm all for saving the future that's why I'm researching technology to that will stop meteors as well as help terrestrial species when our galaxy collides with Andromeda but I don't think Earth's destabilizing orbit is a large factor in global temperature increase.

Well, good for you.

OK - So Macchi Picchu was constructed before the 15th century AD.

 

The temple of the sun was desinged in such a manner so during the June Solstice, the sun shines through a temple window and aligns with both the boulder within and the tip of a nearby mountain peak.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080619-solstice-facts_2.html

 

Still seems to work in 2012:

 

 

Seems to unequivocally disprove a 26 degree shift int he Earth's axis, at least in the last ~500 years or so.

Gentlemen,

 

The sun is hundred of millions of times larger, than earth a few degrees will not alter its radiation in any manner. You must find a smaller marker to guage any deviation in earth orbit.

OK - So Macchi Picchu was constructed before the 15th century AD.

 

The temple of the sun was desinged in such a manner so during the June Solstice, the sun shines through a temple window and aligns with both the boulder within and the tip of a nearby mountain peak.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080619-solstice-facts_2.html

 

Still seems to work in 2012:

 

 

Seems to unequivocally disprove a 26 degree shift int he Earth's axis, at least in the last ~500 years or so.

If you are using the enormous sun as a gauge to monitor orbital deviations, then no 26 degree shift will not make a difference with the sun in relation with earth.

 

And I fail to see any relevance in your video.

Edited February 21, 2013 by joeman

[swansont]

Magnetic north pole and rotational axis are two very, very, very, very,

very, very different things.

 

REPLY: I'm aware of this, and your point is?

 

My points is that you are making claims about the axis and basing it on the location of the magnetic north pole.

 

 

"axis" is not mentioned in that article.Not once.

 

REPLY: No the article doesn't directly mention the 26 degree shift, but I believe that the earth magnetic field moves as the earth's axis moves. And the chandler's wobble has moved from 1909 thru 2001 as a result of the axis moving. i believe these anomaly are indicators of the additional 26 degree shift in Earth's axis. This is all the scientific evidence I have for how.

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Here's a link to the direction the north pole points, i.e. the axis change. People measure this because they have to know the earth's orientation to know where satellites are (e.g. GPS satellites, whose positioning precision depends on this knowledge)

 

http://maia.usno.navy.mil/whatiseop.html

 

Notice how the variation of the pole orientation is constrained to be less than a half second of arc from 2000-2009. That's 1/7200 of a degree. You can also see the "wobble" over time.

 

 

Even if you reject this evidence you certainly can't deny the other anomalies I point out.

 

Ah, the "shotgun" approach. Shoot enough bullshit buckshot and hope that something hits. That's almost the opposite of how science works.

 

This 26 degree additional shift in earth's axis effect the seasons. Look for seasonal deviation in the climate. The 26 degree shift in earth axis has expose the southern part of the northern hemisphere to the sun, and the winters here are warm, and sunny.

 

You could go outside and measure the angle of the sun above the horizon at solar noon. This, along with the equation of time, will tell you what the angle of the earth's pole is. It's a fairly simple experiment and would definitively show you to be right or wrong. You're asking people to believe your BS, when they can simply look outside and see that you are wrong. The sun isn't where your claim demands it should be. It's not a subtle error here. It's huge.

 

The question is, will you do this experiment?

[joeman]

Seriously, how come Stonehenge still lines up with the sun at the Solstice?

Because the sun is so large, and the earth is so close that a few degree will not mis-align the sun in relation to the earth, or any structure.

 

The shifting of the earth effects the seasons. Look for seasonal deviations, like unusual warm winters.

Edited February 21, 2013 by joeman

[Arete]

Because the sun is so large, and the earth is so close that a few degree will not mis-align the sun in relation to the earth, or any structure.

 

Again, changes in the relative angle of the earth to the sun produce substantial changes in the observed angle between the earth and the sun. I.e the angle of the earth's axis produces the seasons - a 26 degree change in that angle would have profound effects on the seasons, and the angle of observation of the sun. Your assertion is trivially proven false.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

Edited February 21, 2013 by Arete

[Ophiolite]

If the axis has shifted, joeman, can you explain to me why the stars at night still appear to revolve around Polaris?

[joeman]

Again, changes in the relative angle of the earth to the sun produce substantial changes in the observed angle between the earth and the sun. I.e the angle of the earth's axis produces the seasons - a 26 degree change in that angle would have profound effects on the seasons, and the angle of observation of the sun. Your assertion is trivially proven false.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

The website you post is a poorly illustrated. i disagree with many of its illustrations. Let's keep it simple, so I'll understand better. Look at the illustrations on the website below, it better illustrates seasonal changes of the earth. Both hemispheres receives light, but only receives direct solar radiation. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_seasons.html

 

Use your mental visualization, and the website I posted to see what I'm saying. When its summer in the southern hemisphere, its winter in the northern hemisphere, and the northern hemisphere is facing away from the sun. Now, if the north pole moves an addition 26 degrees toward the sun the southern part of the northern hemisphere will receive direct solar radiation, causing the winters in this region to experience spring, and summer like conditions, do you understand?

 

When it summer in the northern hemisphere, and the sun is use to determine if the earth's axis moved an addition 26 degrees an astronomer wouldn't have to make dramatic adjustments to his telescope, because the sun it so large, or for the skies at night, because the skies are, so large. And in the scheme of things 26 degree additional shift of the earth axis is not dramatic.

 

If the axis has shifted, joeman, can you explain to me why the stars at night still appear to revolve around Polaris?

From your position on earth you have a view of the sky that spans for hundreds of thousands of light year in many directions. A small shift in the earth's axis will not mis-align your view of the north star, nor would this small shift would stop other stars from circling it, In my humble opinion.

Edited February 22, 2013 by joeman

[swansont]

The website you post is a poorly illustrated. i disagree with many of its illustrations. Let's keep it simple, so I'll understand better. Look at the illustrations on the website below, it better illustrates seasonal changes of the earth. Both hemispheres receives light, but only receives direct solar radiation. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_seasons.html

 

Use your mental visualization, and the website I posted to see what I'm saying. When its summer in the southern hemisphere, its winter in the northern hemisphere, and the northern hemisphere is facing away from the sun. Now, if the north pole moves an addition 26 degrees toward the sun the southern part of the northern hemisphere will receive direct solar radiation, causing the winters in this region to experience spring, and summer like conditions, do you understand?

 

EVERYBODY understands. That's not the problem. More tilt = warmer summers. You are trying to reverse the situation, though, and warmer summers ≠ more tilt. There are a number of possible reasons for warmer summers. So we look for other data, such as the actual position of the sun (or the stars) and we see that it has not moved from where it's supposed to be.

 

 

When it summer in the northern hemisphere, and the sun is use to determine if the earth's axis moved an addition 26 degrees an astronomer wouldn't have to make dramatic adjustments to his telescope, because the sun it so large, or for the skies at night, because the skies are, so large. And in the scheme of things 26 degree additional shift of the earth axis is not dramatic.

 

 

The sun does not subtend 26 degrees of arc, and we can make pretty precise measurements, so this is a pretty lame argument. 26 degrees would be very noticeable. It's more than the difference between the position of the sun at equinox and solstice.

 

 

 

 

From your position on earth you have a view of the sky that spans for hundreds of thousands of light year in all directions. A small shift in the earth's axis will not mis-align your view of thenorth star, nor would this small shift would stop other stars from circling it, In my humble opinion.

 

This is science. We can quantify things and measure them. Your opinion does not match up with reality. Why aren't you willing to do the experiment of simply looking up?

[Arete]

i disagree with many of its illustrations.

 

 

I think what you are disagreeing with is reality.

 

do you understand?

 

 

Do you understand that the observed position of the sun changes with the seasons?

 

 

A small shift in the earth's axis will not mis-align your view of the north star, nor would this small shift would stop other stars from circling it, In my humble opinion.

 

Except, the observed position of the sun, moon and stars all change with the seasons, with the relative shifts in a specific point on earth's surface relative the axis of the earth. People have observed these changes for thousands of years.

 

As such, a 26 degree change in the axis of the earth would cause a significant shift in the observed position of celestial bodies from a given point on earth. As such a shift is not observed, it disproves your test hypothesis conclusively.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Arete

[Ophiolite]

The From your position on earth you have a view of the sky that spans for hundreds of thousands of light year in many directions. A small shift in the earth's axis will not mis-align your view of the north star, nor would this small shift would stop other stars from circling it, In my humble opinion.

You are not talking about a small shift. You are talking about tens of degrees. That would point the north pole towards, or near, an entirely different star. Your inability ot understand this very simple point renders your opinion valueless.

 

You seem to have been working on these misconceptioons for thirty years. Don't you think it's time you woke up?

[joeman]

EVERYBODY understands. That's not the problem. More tilt = warmer summers. You are trying to reverse the situation, though, and warmer summers ≠ more tilt. There are a number of possible reasons for warmer summers. So we look for other data, such as the actual position of the sun (or the stars) and we see that it has not moved from where it's supposed to be.

REPLY: No No No, More tilt doesn't mean warmer summers, it means certain areas of this planet will experience summer like conditions in winter. In this instance the sun never changes positions, its the earth that changing positions, sir.

 

The sun does not subtend 26 degrees of arc, and we can make pretty precise measurements, so this is a pretty lame argument. 26 degrees would be very noticeable. It's more than the difference between the position of the sun at equinox and solstice.

REPLY: You wrong on so many levels I don't know where to began. Maybe you are not using proper terminology?

 

(1). A 26 degree shift would not alter the sun arc across the sky, sir. Lame is right the right terminology.

 

(2). I agree with the people that post this website, but if you disagree then that's fine, sir. .http://www.divulgence.net/[/size]

 

And a 26 degree shift will not alter the sun's equinox and solstice, Gzzzzz.

This is science. We can quantify things and measure them. Your opinion does not match up with reality. Why aren't you willing to do the experiment of simply looking up?

With all do respect, I disagree with analysis.

[Arete]

A 26 degree shift would not alter the sun arc across the sky, sir....And a 26 degree shift will not alter the sun's equinox and solstice.

 

Err, yes it would. We know relative shifts in the angle of a given position on the earth changes the observed position of the sun in the sky. That's an observed fact. You may as well be trying to argue that the earth is flat.

[joeman]

I think what you are disagreeing with is reality.

REPLY: The website I posted better explain my point. I sure both of our websites are saying the same thing. I don't disagree with your website, I needed better clarification.

Do you understand that the observed position of the sun changes with the seasons?

REPLY: Yes????????????

 

 

 

Except, the observed position of the sun, moon and stars all change with the seasons, with the relative shifts in a specific point on earth's surface relative the axis of the earth. People have observed these changes for thousands of years.

 

As such, a 26 degree change in the axis of the earth would cause a significant shift in the observed position of celestial bodies from a given point on earth. As such a shift is not observed, it disproves your test hypothesis conclusively.

REPLY: People have notice:

 

http://www.divulgence.net/

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

 

http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/precess/chandler.html

 

 

See topic 2.3 on website below.

 

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ldeo/v1011x-1/jcm/Topic2/Topic2.html

 

Err, yes it would. We know relative shifts in the angle of a given position on the earth changes the observed position of the sun in the sky. That's an observed fact. You may as well be trying to argue that the earth is flat.

There is evidence, and you refuse to except it. Maybe this problem has not manifest in ways you think it should?

 

http://www.divulgence.net/

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

 

http://geophysics.ou...s/chandler.html

 

 

See topic 2.3 on website below.

 

http://www.columbia....ic2/Topic2.html

 

Err, yes it would. We know relative shifts in the angle of a given position on the earth changes the observed position of the sun in the sky. That's an observed fact. You may as well be trying to argue that the earth is flat.

Okay, we are not going to agree with one another. Where do we go from here. I don't know about you, but go in circle makes me dizzy.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, gentleman. I will leave now, good bye.

Edited February 22, 2013 by joeman