You just had to drive your fossil fueled vehicle instead of spending $3500 on a E-bike
Earth Has Tilted 31.5 Inches. That Shouldn’t Happen.
Water has power. So much power, in fact, that pumping Earth’s groundwater can change the planet’s tilt and rotation. It can also impact sea-level rise and other consequences of climate change.
Pumping groundwater appears to have a greater consequence than ever previously thought. But now—thanks to a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters—we can see that, in less than two decades, Earth has tilted 31.5 inches as a result of pumping groundwater. This equates to.24 inches of sea level rise.
“Earth’s rotational pole actually changes a lot,” Ki-Weon Seo, a geophysicist at Seoul National University and study lead, says in a statement. “Our study shows that among climate-related causes, the redistribution of groundwater actually has the largest impact on the drift of the rotational pole.”
Why did they have to drag the climate scam into this?
The study included data from 1993 through 2010, and showed that the pumping of as much as 2,150 gigatons of groundwater has caused a change in the Earth’s tilt of roughly 31.5 inches. The pumping is largely for irrigation and human use, with the groundwater eventually relocating to the oceans.
So, for irrigation, food production, and more. But, no, they had to jump in with the scam.
In the study, researchers modeled observed changes in the drift of Earth’s rotational pole and the movement of water. Across varying scenarios, the only model that matched the drift was one that included 2,150 gigatons of groundwater distribution.
That would be about 1/50 millionth of the globes circumference. That’s a lot smaller than a rounding error. Do we really have instrumentation that precise? But, wait, what was that about modeled? From the study
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.
So, not really data, just “we think”. This might have had more impact if they just stayed with environmental component, but, not, the media seems to be required to include the cult in everything.
Oops! Better fix that article subheading: 31.5 inches, not 31.5 degrees!
The dates inclusive for the study are 1993 through 2010, so we can’t really blame Donald Trump, so I guess that it’s all George Bush’s fault. Doesn’t matter which one: the elder President Bush can be blamed for siring the younger President Bush!
The data is the 31.5 inches.The “theory” is that the best possible explanation for the observed phenomenon is that it was caused by pumping groundwater.
Scientists also have a “theory” that the moon is a solid sphere.a previous “theory” that it was made of cheese was disproved by “data”
Teach has never seemed to grasu scientific nomenclature.
A scientific theory is not dogma and is always subject to being refuted or rejected. The “theory” of global warming has been attacked for decades. It is still our best explanation of the data we observe.
Nice copy and paste, Johnny. The theory of gw has been attacked for decades simply because heat hasn’t always followed CO2 in earth’s history and there are other theories that haven’t been falsified. “A scientific theory is not dogma and is always subject to being refuted or rejected”. Then why has your cult consistently claimed “the science is settled”?
Jill,
Science is never settled, but reasonable people can conclude enough evidence is available to suggest action. The beauty of science is that it is provisional!!
Smoking was never “proven” to cause cancer, but yet most reasonable people agree that is contributory. We “violate” Americans’ rights by limiting where people smoke and who can purchase tobacco!
Air pollution was never “proven” to cause asthma, but yet most reasonable people agree that limiting air pollution is justified, even if it violates your or a company’s freedom to pollute.
The Earth appears to be about 4.5 Billion years old; the universe about 14.5 Billion. Most Evangelical christians do not believe this. And science is still unsure what the heck is the mechanism of gravity – yet we avoid jumping off building.
The scientific evidence that the recent (150 yrs) increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing warming is overwhelming to all but the WDs.
You should admit that the concern of WDs is not about the science of GW but is about the suggested actions.
Rimjob: Smoking was never “proven” to cause cancer
That is incorrect. LOL
CumBreath: That is incorrect. LOL
You are wrong. Only about 15% of smokers get lung cancer!! But the circumstantial evidence that tobacco smoke causes human cancer is overwhelming. Volatile chemicals in tobacco smoke have been shown to cause cancers in laboratory mice and to cause genetic damage in cell cultures and can be detected in lung cells of smokers. Yet, most smokers do not get cancer!!
But Rimjob you claimed smoking was “never proven to cause cancer” then conversely you claim, “Only about 15% of smokers get lung cancer!!”
Are you really this stupid?
Bwaha! Lolgfy!
Non-sequitur, CumBreath. Try again.
Yes Rimjob, one can agree that it is yours.
Thanks for owning up to it.
“Science is never settled..” Then why “the science is settled”? “Scientific evidence..that the increase in CO2 is causing warming”.
What evidence? That during this period in earth’s history warming has occurred with an increase in CO2 isn’t really evidence, it’s a simple correlation, as there have been times when an increase in CO2 didn’t cause warming. In other words, the null hypothesis-that this is a natural occurrence, hasn’t been proven false.
And lung cancer has a simple correlation with smoking. Yet we’re acting.
Why? Although tobacco sellers argued against the science for decades just as oil companies have, The People acted.
Tobacco should be banned, and although we’ve compromised with the devil, we taxpayers still pay millions to treat lung cancer (and other *smoking-related cancer) victims via Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans med. Should we refuse to pay to treat smokers?
BTW, over 450,000 Americans die from smoking yearly. About 40,000 from second-hand smoke.
By comparison, according to lCE, in FY2022, only 62 immigrants (legal AND illegal) were convicted of homicide. But, you know, priorities!
We know, we know… if we had NO immigrants we’d have 62 more living residents. And if we had no tobacco we’d have over 400,000 more.
Evidence?
Are we adding unprecedented amounts of CO2 to the air (yes, at least for the last 3-5 million years or so – BTW, humans are about 300,000 years old, human civilization only about 12,000 years). Does CO2 slow the escape of heat to outer space? Yes. Earth is warming? Yes. CO2 at 425 ppm and rising? Yes and Yes. Proof? No. Evidence. Yes!
______________________
*Mouth, throat, neck, bladder, kidney, pancreas, stomach, liver, myeloid leukemia, colon, rectum, esophagus… Smoking also causes emphysema, bronchitis, heart disease, hypertension, aortic aneurysm…
Teaches beloved Saudis have bought up huge areas of AZ frilled very deep wells and have pumped out so much water to grow dairy cow feed crops to be sent back home that Manny AZ families can not afford to drill deep enough to get water from their own wells.
Super grateful for the flattery of thinking it was cut and paste. As you might remember I am currently a full time student at CUNY in NYC> Last semester I took an entry level course in Astronomy. It was heavy with scientific theory, with heavy emphasis on our understanding especially of cosmology that scientific theories are open to change, That the current theory is inly the best possible explanation of our observations at this time.
The science is settled that at this time that CO2 is the cause of our current warming. The fact that “heat” hasn’t always followed CO2 has only showed that there are other variables that can also affect the temp of our planet.
However those other variable such as volcanos activity or orbital tilt or irradiance (we have been subject to a decline in “heat” from the Sun for at least the last 50 years)can not be used to explain the rapid rise we are experiencing now.
This semester my fav courses are my 2 philosophy courses, last semester I enjoyed “Philosophy of Art” Part of the syllabus for one course is Weston’s “Rules for Arguments”
People on “my side” ay many things. You are using what is called a “strawman fallacy” misrepresenting what I have said and then discrediting it.
That is such a weak argument. It is like me saying that “Your side says that only God can control the weather and that Noah really did put all the dinosaurs in his Ark”
I am so enjoying my time at CUNY> and in addition!!! the money. Living in blue socialist NY (with the SOROS rank of commissar) means that I am paid to go school here.
tuition $5000 per year (2 semesters) each only 14 weeks
Grants $10000 $7000 federal and $3000 NY state) no payback as long as grades are good
Loans $10000 per year Fed student subsidized @ 4%.
Loans begin payback 2029 I expect to owe 40/50000 dollars. I have selected the “extended” longest payback with monthly cost dependent on income I expect that cost to be about $50 per month. Payback is around 50 years. I will be about 130 yo. I promised to do my best.
Although Mr Teach copies & pastes every post, 2 of the 3 dumbest* right wing commenters always accuse others of copy & paste as if it’s bad, LOL.
Makes no sense.
__________________
*CumBreath and Jill, with david McQuack the Third.
Johnny, Johnny..you seem to have contradicted yourself. “The science is settled that CO2 is the cause of warming” This just after you said in your first post that “a scientific theory isn’t dogma and is always subject to being refuted or rejected”.
“There were other variables at play that can affect the heat”. Yes, and there are other variables at play today, as you’ve been shown numerous times. “The rapid rise we are experiencing now”. As asked many times before, rapid compare to what? And anyway “rapid” is irrelevant unless it can be shown to be overwhelming a negative thing. That hasn’t happened
Jilly, Jilly…
Rapid compared to the end of the last ice age.
jl the science is currently quite sure, a consensus has been established. However that does not preclude that more scientific investigation should be done. Science is not afraid to admit being incorrect. so far the consensus on global warming has been often attacked, but, at this time, the consensus remains intact. The current cause of global warming is CO2 increasing. Jl why do you believe that the temps are increasing? The way scientific theory works is you must come up with a more plausible theory and see what others think of it. I have often asked Teach for his expalnation of why the temps are rising so quickly he has never offered an opposing theory. I suspect that you will not either.
I am sorry what are the other variables that you might think are raising the temps. LOL Urban island heat? *8 percent of the Earth is covered in water. out of the remaining 20% about 2% is urban
that works out to urban areas being about 1/1000 of the planets surface. Pretty insignificant.
A rapid rise as compared to ALL historical records. Paleoclimatology is a science and uses proxies not “thermometers” during the end of the ice age the planet warmed about 5C in 10000 years. That end was caused by orbital changes. That is not the reason temps are changing now, is it?
Positive ? Negative? The climate is changing quicker than life can easily adapt. The fact that there is no more ice skating on ponds in the winter might be thought to be a good thing, others a negative thing. And THAT HAS HAPPENED in my lifetime, Thanksgiving Day football with snow was uncommon but not rare. It is now rare. Most of the cohort who disbelieve in either global warming or the cause of it are old people. Also their is a strong correlation between that disbelief and educational achievement. The least educated states have the highest levels of disbelief. The most highly educated states have the highest belief in global warming. Probably there is also a strong correlation between the disbelief in global warming and disbelief in evolution.
Jl do you believe in the “theory” of evolution? Or the dogma of the Bible?