Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Gatefan1976]

You really are clueless and beyond any redemption.

The Earth is a -relatively- closed system, much like the human body is a -relatively- closed system.
If I feed you a constant diet of junk food, cigarettes, and alcohol, what do you think would happen to your body?
You think you would just "shake it off"?
If I did it for 5 years and you detoxed, you might, -just might- shake off the effects if you are young, If you did it for 30 years, your internals would be a utter wreck.
Your lungs would be shot, your liver and kidney function would be severely compromised, your waste systems would be shattered. Bones and muscle would have deteriorated and your brains synaptic functions would be compromised.
In other words, you would be a walking corpse, just waiting for the last thing to kick you over the edge.

The human body, like the Earth does go through changes over time, they are "natural climate change" and they are indeed a natural function of the planet. What -we- are doing is beyond natural, we are adding the alcohol, the smokes, the bad food and just like our closed system, it too will reach a breaking point.

As for "poo pooing" the scientists -predictions-, I find it utterly hilarious, and gob-smackingly self indulgent that you think a bronze age book, written by ignorant yahoo's is a reliable source, and the scientific community is "questionable".
PT Barnum would -love- you.

[Annoyed]

I'm not exactly sure who you were quoting here, but I can say for certainty that I don't like the article.

An article entitled "Seeing Reason" was the cover story in the Dec. 3-9 issue of the magazine. The piece covered how human brains skew facts and how the brain might be corrected to think properly.

I don't need some liberal "correcting" how I think because I look at the situation and come to a conclusion they disagree with.

[jelgate]

Everything is a political conspiracy with you

[aretood2]

It's gotten rather....annoying

[jelgate]

*beats aretood*

You know puns were WP's thing*

[SGalisa]

You really are clueless and beyond any redemption.

The Earth is a -relatively- closed system, much like the human body is a -relatively- closed system...

So be it. I know about the earth's closed system. Been tracking the dwindling water supplies with droughts, too. That's kind of amazing if the ocean's are "rising" and thus about to drown most of the earth's existing land masses above sea level.


As usual, let's not go off onto another bunny trail apart from whatever my original comments about the melting polar caps were about. Not talking about future issues caused by man-made waste at the moment, but am discussing the polar movement going from one direction to another. Otherwise, I'd be spouting off about all of those fireplaces and woodstoves puffing smoky clouds into the air, causing asthmatic breathing conditions.. Having suffered from various airborn-type allergies, there are times when I do see and smell such smoky or sooty things on clear, cold mornings and often wonder how BAD the air used to be just from keeping warm by the fireside hearth. Nevermind the health of those poor chimney sweepers who had to clean out the creosote from the chimneys on a regular basis.

Based on that, how different are the particles of air-dust/dirt damaging from centuries of smoky air being breathed in as opposed to current particles of dirt in 2016 and a few decades prior? Probably the difference between mixing toxic plastics as opposed to natural green plant-life (dead wood) fumes, both which can cause eventual death from being inhaled so many days, months, or years in a person's lifespan. Seems current folks sometimes forget those same plants used in modern day artificial mixtures also actually originate from those very plants that also get burned up as firewood and kindling, etc.

(I do have some EPA knowledge that has sunken into that noggin of mine over these past decades.)


Anywho.. Since I have often been criticised for being too wordy, when I do reduce my thoughts to leave out 10,000 extra words, seems info still gets misunderstood thru the grapevine.

So, I will state that I posted those 2 articles to show two opposing viewpoints of the same coin, so to speak. I also will say that tho there are chunks of both articles I *might* agree with, there are other chunks which I skimmed over because I believed those went off onto other bunny trails, and I *might* not necessarily agree with all points. Therefore, what I quoted between both is where my further comments will remain.

The DailyBeast article "It's Going to Be the Warmest Christmas at the North Pole Ever"
by Jay Michaelson, 12.25.16 12:03 AM ET --seemed to be presenting fear mongering *panic mode* over Santa's home abode and workshop being in danger of drowning, if it hasn't already sunk below sea level down to the bottom of the ocean. blub,blub.

Jay Michaelson stated in his last sentence to imply that if Santa's workshop was melting beneath the icy surface, it's because of who (Trump & company) are about to move into the White House in 2017. Really!?

My problem with Jay Michaelson's comment is that his final statement is like saying the mysterious Fog Cloud that is heading towards our solar system, yet is still millions and millions of miles away, has already caused the earth's magnetic fields to go wonky between the 1960's to 2016. Let's have common sense rationalize out who's been in office, still is there, and what our earth's current climate is experiencing. Let the current and previous owners take responsibility for what has occurred on their "watches", not blameshift existing problems to the next guy who isn't even there (in office) yet. (Generic) You can't eat a cake that isn't fully baked yet, while its ingredients are still sitting in the fridge or closet and haven't yet been mixed. Silly people! Well, you could eat it, but health-wise, it isn't advisable to eat improperly or unmixed ingredients and call that a well baked cake.

Anywho, my point with presenting the 2 articles was simple and NOT too complicated. Both were about climate changes. Point A--1st article claimed the leftists were smarter, but ran into other bunny trails of psychology that is mumbo-jumbo, IMO. Point B--2nd article about "Sad Santa" losing his frigid North Pole workshop, only sees the traditional top and bottom points of the planet and does not take into account the realistic wobbling of the magnetic poles flipping over the centuries.

I've studied these flipping poles in the past and believe our earth is in the flux zone of a convoluted swapping experience. The best image that probably presents our current situation, can probably be seen in the
"during a reversal" image at
"Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field" (Science by NASA). Top image tracks the north pole's wanderings from 1831 to 2001.

The image next to (scroll down the web page to get to) the "North Magnetic Pole--Modern (post-1996)" tracks the North Pole's wanderings from the year 1590 to 2015 with a projected track to 2020. In this image, the magnetic north pole takes a deceptive north to southern track and reverses course to head north again after 1859.

For anyone interesting in the detailed Historical Magnetic Declination map, please go to
"NOAA--Historical Magnetic Declination--National Centers for Environmental Information". Apparently, this map reinforces the 1590 to 2020 tracking system of both north and south magnetic poles (which seems to appear to be all over the planet..). Looks too crazy to follow, let alone comprehend from a *layman's* (hunh?) viewpoint, IMHO..

It was and still is these maps which I have been basing my own theories about why the earth's climate keeps changing from warm to cold in the weirdest of places, according to our modern times educational system. Add in any deep earthquakes (such as the December 26, 2004 and 12/26/2006 Indian Ocean and Asian Tsunami / earthquake) tossing whatever goo is deep inside our earth into the mix, and it's easy to see how weather systems are shifting along with the shifting of the magnetic polar poles -- providing the *wobbling* or wandering climate effect. Places like the equator that just don't seem to be the normal locale for the north or south poles to show up at. Yet, history shows they've been there if the NOAA (etc) maps are correct.

[Falcon Horus]

That's kind of amazing if the ocean's are "rising" and thus about to drown most of the earth's existing land masses above sea level.

Because, smarty-pants, water flows towards the oceans, not the other way around.

And you really don't want it to be the other way round, cause salt water isn't the healthiest of waters to be drinking.

[mad_gater]

Because, smarty-pants, water flows towards the oceans, not the other way around.

And you really don't want it to be the other way round, cause salt water isn't the healthiest of waters to be drinking.

isn't that what water filters and desalinizers are for?

[SGalisa]

And you really don't want it to be the other way round, cause salt water isn't the healthiest of waters to be drinking.

Try desalination and reverse osmosis. Problem other than cost with both technologies is desalination plants have had troubles with the resident marine life getting caught in the filters and clogging up the intake process. I heard lots of jellyfish are constantly clogging up the intake filters, which need frequent maintenance.

So, without killing off major populations at various points on earth, what is the best solution for restocking diminishing (under)ground water supplies and working with what we currently have..?

Even visible surface / exposed fresh water lakes are NOT automatically 100% drinkable. There seems to be critters living in those fresh lakes.. some parasites, some fishies, some other critters.. and they all go pee and poop somehow. Not a good idea to just slurp the water up without purifying it first.

Some lakes are also becoming hazardous for swimming with the "brain-eating" ameobas, which seem to like warmer water climates. Never heard of these critters, until recently, tho I have heard of a serious swimming ailment known as "swimmers ear". Different maladies. I do remember swimming in *warm* spots in various lakes, but usually if those weren't heated by the sun--which freezing water was felt so many feet further below, such cozy/warm spots came from .. oooOooo! let's not go there, please! Foul water tainted by urine from who-knows-where..! Still requires sanitizing before becoming a drinkable water source.

ugh! This *clean water* issue is probably going to morph world-wide into water wars, and probably very soon. It was presumed about over 30 years ago that OIL and Gas would become the #1 resource for fighting over who gets the last drops in use.. But recently--within the last 5 years or so, water has finally been declared as being a *precious* commodity, as well. I've read reports where water was even being debated as being something all life should have FREE access to or if it is a luxury item..! I forget where I read the info, but in *3rd* world countries, clean water is considered a luxury item, not easily accessible either, since many 3rd world countries have brackish (toxins) in their water supplies.

This is stuff that most folks who do have *clean* or purified water often take for granted and rarely if ever *think* about what has been given to us on our earth, is all precious.. Earth is unique in our solar system/hence probably our own galaxy, in that we have at our very fingertips all the resources we need to live--all on this one planet--Earth. Nature is generous in providing new geographical landmasses via whatever those volcanoes spit out, but as Gatefan1976 pointed out, earth is a "Closed" and limited system. Sadly, most of our existing resources get squandered because of political, power-crazed persons who feast on their own agendas of selfishness and decide who will be permitted to join their circles of enjoying *life*.. etc.

Now, as a sideline issue, if certain people with the finances to help this planet change for the better from the 1950's forward, and weren't so greedy for power control, drought stricken areas could already have pipeline systems installed to move plentiful water supplies to those areas hit by drought, and vice-versa when/if the situations reversed. However, such thoughts remain as just thoughts and never became actual, physical projects. The maintenance required would be necessary ---- and not just be there to set piping down, have designated redirection points monitored, and then forget about it. Take into account for earthquakes and shifting of ground from other events.

The possibilities are endless as to what technology can accomplish, but such an existence will never happen until mankind begins to work together as a united TEAM and stops fighting over who gets to point A first.

[Gatefan1976]

ugh! This *clean water* issue is probably going to morph world-wide into water wars, and probably very soon. It was presumed about over 30 years ago that OIL and Gas would become the #1 resource for fighting over who gets the last drops in use.. But recently--within the last 5 years or so, water has finally been declared as being a *precious* commodity, as well.

Oil and gas will be the commodity of choice -unless- alternate energy sources are explored -properly-, not some half arsed "We threw some cash at it, it's a waste, shut it down" that is constantly spewed by............. republicans.

I've read reports where water was even being debated as being something all life should have FREE access to or if it is a luxury item..! I forget where I read the info, but in *3rd* world countries, clean water is considered a luxury item, not easily accessible either, since many 3rd world countries have brackish (toxins) in their water supplies.

Of course we should have free access to water, without it, we die. Take it the step further and say that the first world should -help- the 3rd world get it, and people will whinge however and call it "socialism".

This is stuff that most folks who do have *clean* or purified water often take for granted and rarely if ever *think* about what has been given to us on our earth, is all precious.. Earth is unique in our solar system/hence probably our own galaxy, in that we have at our very fingertips all the resources we need to live--all on this one planet--Earth. Nature is generous in providing new geographical landmasses via whatever those volcanoes spit out, but as Gatefan1976 pointed out, earth is a "Closed" and limited system. Sadly, most of our existing resources get squandered because of political, power-crazed persons who feast on their own agendas of selfishness and decide who will be permitted to join their circles of enjoying *life*.. etc.

Yes, you are quite correct. I wonder -which- political party does that the most eh?

Now, as a sideline issue, if certain people with the finances to help this planet change for the better from the 1950's forward, and weren't so greedy for power control, drought stricken areas could already have pipeline systems installed to move plentiful water supplies to those areas hit by drought, and vice-versa when/if the situations reversed. However, such thoughts remain as just thoughts and never became actual, physical projects. The maintenance required would be necessary ---- and not just be there to set piping down, have designated redirection points monitored, and then forget about it. Take into account for earthquakes and shifting of ground from other events.

Again, who does not like doing that eh?

The possibilities are endless as to what technology can accomplish, but such an existence will never happen until mankind begins to work together as a united TEAM and stops fighting over who gets to point A first.

Are you asking for a one world order, cause I thought you were opposed to that.
Or is only if it's not -your- team that gets their first? (George Soros!!!!)

Obamacare is a -perfect- example of this. Instead of -working- with Obama, Republicans did everything they could to make sure it came out as a half arsed plan -INSTEAD- of working with him to make it good for all Americans. Now, they will try to roll it back and replace it with what exactly? The only plan they have had for 8 years is "not that Kenyan Muslim's plan", and nothing more. Who opposed it the most? Deep red states. Who benefitted the most from it? Deep red state (you can look this up if you want, though I suppose it will just be lame stream media fake news...........).

Yeah, strangely enough I don't believe in this new "work with us" BS coming from republicans, because as soon as you say "err, why should we?", you get "bah, stop whining and get over it, you LOST and you lost EVERYTHING MUHAHAHAhahahaha.

[Falcon Horus]

isn't that what water filters and desalinizers are for?

Indeed, but have you looked at the costs?

First world countries, close to salt water source, have the budget for it. But did you know that countries and places higher up have to incorporate transportation costs which push the cost of the filtering, making the end result a commodity a third world country will not be able to afford.

Try desalination and reverse osmosis. Problem other than cost with both technologies is desalination plants have had troubles with the resident marine life getting caught in the filters and clogging up the intake process. I heard lots of jellyfish are constantly clogging up the intake filters, which need frequent maintenance.

That is sadly not the only issue.
If it were, then it would just require more research how to make sure marine life is as little effected as possible. The occasional jellyfish making a wrong turn is acceptable -- we all make wrong turns in our lives at least once.

Why can't we convert salt water into drinking water?

Is desalination cost-effective? The answer probably depends on where you live. Given the high costs of freshwater importation and reclamation, desalinating seawater is an increasingly attractive option for water-stressed areas. The potential for desalination is limited mostly by social, political, environmental and economic considerations, which vary from place to place. Any way you look at it, the rising tide of desalination seems likely to remain a growing part of our water portfolio for years to come.

[aretood2]

*beats aretood*

You know puns were WP's thing*

She's gone and she's never coming back! Someone has to do it.

Because, smarty-pants, water flows towards the oceans, not the other way around.

And you really don't want it to be the other way round, cause salt water isn't the healthiest of waters to be drinking.

I thought we explained as much to her already...

isn't that what water filters and desalinizers are for?

That would require major government subsidies. If you think the clean energy industry is unsustainable (economically) then you really wouldn't want a water cleaning industry.

[Falcon Horus]

That would require major government subsidies. If you think the clean energy industry is unsustainable (economically) then you really wouldn't want a water cleaning industry.

And Trump's administration's gonna cut those fundings. If there are any to begin with.

[mad_gater]

She's gone and she's never coming back! Someone has to do it.

I thought we explained as much to her already...


That would require major government subsidies. If you think the clean energy industry is unsustainable (economically) then you really wouldn't want a water cleaning industry.

actually.....it's only economically unsustainable because the methods the left-wingers keep coming up with for clean energy and water and what not....and the methods our elected idiots are more than happy to subsidize....are not economically viable

number one....it's generally not a good idea to rely on transient weather conditions as a primary source of power......at best you would need different natural sources for different areas...for example while solar power might not be economically viable in the British Isles where everyone is pasty because the sun makes an appearance rarely , it might be economically viable in the Sahara since desert areas tend to get rather copious amounts of sunlight

it's the same with trying to derive power from other weather conditions as well

What I think though is that if something comes up in this department that's just as economically viable as we have now and could stand on its own without needing taxpayer subsidies...I'd support it wholeheartedly...of course IMO that would generally come from the private sector, not the government sector

[mad_gater]

Indeed, but have you looked at the costs?

First world countries, close to salt water source, have the budget for it. But did you know that countries and places higher up have to incorporate transportation costs which push the cost of the filtering, making the end result a commodity a third world country will not be able to afford.



That is sadly not the only issue.
If it were, then it would just require more research how to make sure marine life is as little effected as possible. The occasional jellyfish making a wrong turn is acceptable -- we all make wrong turns in our lives at least once.

Why can't we convert salt water into drinking water?

Is desalination cost-effective? The answer probably depends on where you live. Given the high costs of freshwater importation and reclamation, desalinating seawater is an increasingly attractive option for water-stressed areas. The potential for desalination is limited mostly by social, political, environmental and economic considerations, which vary from place to place. Any way you look at it, the rising tide of desalination seems likely to remain a growing part of our water portfolio for years to come.

I was actually being somewhat facetious anyway but I think though that given enough time someone could probably come up with a much more cost-effective way of removing salt and other undesirable crap from water to purify it for drinking