Thor’s Hall

Who knew that these guys were out there, sitting in their labs and crunching numbers like this.  Even more interesting is going to be what the global warming crowd can do with things like this.

From NASA….

The Feb. 27 magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile may have shortened the length of each Earth day.

JPL research scientist Richard Gross computed how Earth’s rotation should have changed as a result of the Feb. 27 quake. Using a complex model, he and fellow scientists came up with a preliminary calculation that the quake should have shortened the length of an Earth day by about 1.26 microseconds (a microsecond is one millionth of a second).

Perhaps more impressive is how much the quake shifted Earth’s axis. Gross calculates the quake should have moved Earth’s figure axis (the axis about which Earth’s mass is balanced) by 2.7 milliarcseconds (about 8 centimeters, or 3 inches). Earth’s figure axis is not the same as its north-south axis; they are offset by about 10 meters (about 33 feet).

By comparison, Gross said the same model estimated the 2004 magnitude 9.1 Sumatran earthquake should have shortened the length of day by 6.8 microseconds and shifted Earth’s axis by 2.32 milliarcseconds (about 7 centimeters, or 2.76 inches).

Gross said that even though the Chilean earthquake is much smaller than the Sumatran quake, it is predicted to have changed the position of the figure axis by a bit more for two reasons. First, unlike the 2004 Sumatran earthquake, which was located near the equator, the 2010 Chilean earthquake was located in Earth’s mid-latitudes, which makes it more effective in shifting Earth’s figure axis. Second, the fault responsible for the 2010 Chiliean earthquake dips into Earth at a slightly steeper angle than does the fault responsible for the 2004 Sumatran earthquake. This makes the Chile fault more effective in moving Earth’s mass vertically and hence more effective in shifting Earth’s figure axis.

Gross said the Chile predictions will likely change as data on the quake are further refined.

A while back I wrote a piece that pointed to the science that supported the conclusion that solar activity has a greater impact on terrestrial climate than any other factor.  The data looked a lot better than man made influence on increasing greenhouse gases.

Now we find some additional theories about solar activity and it’s impact on humankind.  Interesting stuff, it looks like the grid is at risk as well.  Check it here.

Not buying it.

Forget about all of the CLimategate data and the whole “we faked it” finger pointing that is currently going on.

Today is December 10, not yet the first official day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and it is FRACKING – 1 F this morning in the midwest.

I torn, I am so looking forward to going home but that trek from the aircraft to the parking lot to getting the truck started and warmed up is so going to SUCK!

Evidently our friends at the UN are holding a “Global Warming” summit in Copenhagen this week.  Ok, that’s good.  So, the wonderful folks in the media start an article on this event as:

The worst-case scenarios on climate change envisaged by the UN are already being realised, say scientists at an international meeting in Copenhagen.

OK – I think we know where this conference is going.  Folks have their mind made up and all 2500 of them are just going to spend our money to rattle off our sound bites.

In a statement outlining their six key messages to political leaders, they say there is an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climate shifts.

Even modest temperatures rises will affect millions of people, particularly in the developing world, they warn.

—————————–

The meeting was also addressed by Lord Stern, the economist, whose landmark review of the economics of climate change published in 2006 highlighted the severe cost to the world of doing nothing.

He now says the report underestimated the scale of the risks, and the speed at which the planet is warming.

He urged scientists to speak out and tell the politicians what the world would be like if effective measures against global warming were not taken.

He said that if the world was to warm by 5C over the next century there would be dramatic consequences for millions of people. Rising seas would make many areas uninhabitable leading to mass migrations and inevitably sparking violent conflict.

“You’d see hundreds of millions people, probably billions of people who would have to move and we know that would cause conflict, so we would see a very extended period of conflict around the world, decades or centuries as hundreds of millions of people move, ” said Lord Stern.

“So I think it’s very important that we understand the magnitude of the risk we are running.”

So here’s the deal, in my simplified engineer’s mind.  Climate change has been with this planet since it’s inception.  It is incredibly arrogant of humans to believe that we are the cause of climate change.  AND it is potentially disastrous for us to believe that we can change the cycle.  The bulk of the scientific community is in a circular argument that is based completely on terrestrial events and approaches.

There really is not a damn thing we can do about extra terrestrial events (solar activity, etc) that could be a major cause of climate change.  But if the cause is not human activity then why would we try and change human activity to solve the problem.  Hence, the scientists tend to make the data say what they want it to say and they do not look at data that says, “Yo, the SUN has a major contributing factor here”.

Message 1:

• Don’t treat the symptom, find the cause and treat it.  If not treatable, cope with the situation and implement gradual change.

In my professional life, Organizational Change Management is a key to success.  I look at events like this climate conference and I see a disaster.

Message 2:

• Guys if you want to implement change come up with a realistic plan that takes measured steps that show verifiable improvement.  Implement those steps, then communicate the results build enthusiasm by showing success.  Getting on the grand political stage and calling a natural climate cycle a catastrophe is not a recipe for success.

Oh, by the way, what happened to that Ice Age that we were on the brink of in the 70’s.  Did I fall asleep and miss something?

BBC article is here