Interesting link but limited to only discussing rotational speed. Let us assume he is relatively correct in his assessment. What can we conclude about Axial tilt? Or to use a classic example (just for fun): Take a weighted spinning top and disperse the weight equally. What happens to the spin of the top? Possibly: 1/ It starts to wobble (excessively) 2/ it looses it's vertical orientation, "top can become bottom" 3/ Any axial tilt stability it may have had would be lost 3/ It fails to maintain spin for as long due to inherent wobble, due to inequities in it's balance, setting up energy using harmonics. Then include a Moon in the system and ask again what happens to tidal forces and lunar orbit etc.. Hee hee maybe we will get to see the "dark side" of the moon from home... maybe this video would help... then again maybe not..
Or it becomes more stable, as gyroscopes do when you relocate weight away from their axes to their equators.
As angular momentum (a vector) is constant when no other body applies a torque, the only thing that happens when the some of the mass of the body moves wrt where it was, is the axis of rotation may pass thru a slightly different point in the body and the RPMs can change, but the spin VECTOR can not change direction. When ice skater stuck her leg out, she slowed her RPM, but did not start to spin on her head, etc.
By what sane mechanism do you postulate that the Moon will become tidally unlocked from the Earth due to melting ice?
hee hee no sane mechanism... I just thought it was like comparing the spin of a weighted ball with a non-weighted ball. "Thinking Lawn or carpet Bowls" or balanced dice and non-balanced (weighted) dice... Keeping in mind that the Earth is spinning in a vacuum.
Regarding Climate gate controversy. Due to the coincidence of the latest air disaster occurring relatively close to one of those high altitude research stations I mentioned in an earlier post, I had to revisit old ideas etc. ( I do not believe in coincidence - chance) I tend to believe that if the worlds population actually had a clear idea of what to expect in the near future, according to our current confused AGW-ACC understanding, many would become extremely depressed.(suicidal) The latest apparent suicidal dash into a mountain by a young intelligent co-pilot in France; taking his passengers and flight crew with him and the latest string of similar incidences indicate to me at least that the reality of climate change and what that may mean to our individual futures maybe starting to be understood by the wider population, with tragic results. Is it possible that the confusion over AGW etc is due to the fear of provoking a huge increase in the global suicide rates ( and associated negative behavior - violence etc)? That by keeping people ignorant and hopeful due to that confusion, they (we) may go on longer before having to deal with the reality of it all? If the world had to deal with the reality of, for example Billy T's prediction of mice being the only surface animals to exist and even then only for a short while, in 100 years or so from now, what mood could we possibly expect of our teenagers and young adults and older generation? As I mentioned earlier I do not believe in the end times scenario and I have solid reasons for not doing so. However I have had to accept that significant and somewhat painful change MUST and will occur to prevent such a situation from arising. Question: Why would a person who is committing suicide decide to take 150 odd people with him? Possible answer: Because only a few may notice his suicide if he died alone. So I ask: What is the young pilot trying to say by doing what he did? Possible answer: Perhaps, that he has lost hope for a future for himself and most importantly others. May they all RIP.
What is known about the copilot? ........... entertaining irony: The secure door to the cockpit was put there for the safety of the people on board. ........... The best laid plans of mice and men Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain. thanx Robbie
Guessing: Well for starters, he would have had to be extremely career focused. as a co-pilot wishing to be the commanding pilot would normally be... Devoted (24/7) and disciplined. Highly intelligent and trained to react to emergencies with high precision and speed.
Air industry reaction is quite fast: 26/03/2015 "Easyjet flights from Manchester Airport will be among the first to adopt new cockpit rules after the Germanwings tragedy. The operator has announced that from Friday it will now be policy to have two crew members in the cockpit at all times." http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...yjet-flights-manchester-airport-among-8929801
Knowing more than a few pilots, they are people just like anyone else. Perhaps slightly less likely to freeze under pressure, but not exclusively so. And as history has shown, not above making dumb mistakes, ignoring clear threats and doing exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.
2 in the cockpit at all times has been the rule on United States airliners since the locked door practice started.
absolutely not there is no correlation/causation and you cannot show correlation/causation between your belief in confusion re: AGW and the suicide that is because there is no confusion in the science you only "perceive" there to be some confusion becuase you are willing to suspend critical thinking skills and logic in order to believe (and to justify your own belief in) conspiracy You still have not been able to show any logical reason to refuse the science other than "because you said so" this is not logical, critical thinking, nor is it scientific reasoning When you can present the actual science, and then show where, in a study, there is a flaw in the data, interpretation or the observed effects, then you will be able to get the studies and science altered to your line of thought... and neither you nor the BULK of the scientific community paid for by big oil etc has been able to do that Considering that the studies are NOT deleted, altered, changed, excised, refuted, debunked or in any other way threatened by the "denialist" crowd, then we can safely state that the science is Valid, logical and correct. There is no confusion only your assertions that you are confused and that is NOT due to the science
Oh I am not confused. I agree that AGW is a significant factor regards climate change. However the general world population may not be so uhm...enlightened. Blissful in their confusion and therefor denial. Your persisrance in painting people as trolls, denialists, crackpots, when there is no real justification reeks of your own paranoia. Your claim that I am a denialist is absurd. I am only suggesting that there may be other factors at play, both natural and anthroprogenic.
i can only offer the following evidence: The above is only a small sample of your posts that are more in line with delusional, denialist as well as conspiracy thinking (more often associated with trolling and spamming than with actual scientific discourse) plus, you've not actually presented any scientific or legitimate empirical evidence supporting your conclusions only conjecture and personal anecdote so it is not so much absurd when taken as a whole You have a beef with science that is not rational
This is the most logical thing you've said yet And science IS actually investigating both natural AND anthropogenic sources There are numerous ways of telling the sources apart for starters: http://info.ngwa.org/GWOL/pdf/070681933.pdf Plus, in some studies (like oceanographic ones) they tend to show, in their methodology, how they differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html all you have to do is read them
and how are the posts you refer to as trolling? "The most effective way to troll is to constantly accuse others of trolling" Are you a troll?
Does that mean they are AGW denialists? By inquiring like they are doing? Does questioning the science behind the claims make someone a troll?
Troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) the intentional obfuscation of science or the deliberate characterization of science can be said to be trolling you are intentionally trying to obfuscate and sow discord, while also undermining and maligning science, the scientific method and then you add in your conspiratorial leanings as justification for ignoring the science claiming innocence regarding the topic even though your posts are plainly designed to add hysteria and confusion as well as undermine or distract from the valid scientific findings is very disingenuous is it intentional? the scientific method tries to review all options as well as all possible explanations again, that is the power of the method re-read that link i left you explaining the scientific method you are not questioning the science you are complaining about it, trying to characterize it as being untrustworthy or lacking in credibility you have provided no scientific evidence supporting your own conclusions, nor have you given any reputable, reasonable, logical or otherwise empirical reason to not trust science, only personal conjecture and what you believe is logical refute in the form of Ad Hoc and other fallacies being a skeptic is not being a troll but a skeptic will accept logical scientific evidence you've ignored it just like Photozio what else can it be called?
you site one undated paper that has an obvious and declared petro chemical vested interest. (PDF) and then you site an article published in 2003. I suppose that makes you feel credible.... it doesn't to me sorry. try again...
