# The Big Wobble Not Global Warming



## Mayday (Apr 10, 2015)

Found this quite interesting.

http://www.newspaper.indianlife.org/story/2015/01/05/news/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warning-to-nasa-and-the-world/582.html

Tons really great information here also: https://axischange.wordpress.com/

Californias water issues match up with this along with tons of other stuff.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 10, 2015)

More junk conspiracies, usually from people with an agenda to try and discredit global warming.

For this to be true, all the astronomers in the world would have to be covering this up. You do realize that all motorized telescopes require precise knowledge of the Earth's axial tilt in order to track celestial bodies, right?


----------



## Mayday (Apr 10, 2015)

Kalam said:


> More junk conspiracies, usually from people with an agenda to try and discredit global warming.
> 
> For this to be true, all the astronomers in the world would have to be covering this up. You do realize that all motorized telescopes require precise knowledge of the Earth's axial tilt in order to track celestial bodies, right?


How much did you read from the 2nd link?


----------



## tonyg (Apr 10, 2015)

I don't know how the mods feel, but politics should be taken elsewhere.

I'm sure most people don't come here to discuss politics or religious beliefs.


----------



## MannDude (Apr 10, 2015)

Politics and discussion are fine.

Haven' t read the links yet, laptop battery about to die but it's common knowledge that the earth has gone through many heating/cooling cycles in the past. Not trying to argue that we're _helping_ the earth by releasing toxic shit everywhere, just stating that historically speaking, the earth has always had heating/cooling cycles.


----------



## Munzy (Apr 10, 2015)

A tilt/wobble is a natural occurance and common, However, it wouldn't have the effect that California currently is in. However, once again most astronomers would have seen this and a tilt/wobble could be proven.


----------



## Mayday (Apr 10, 2015)

tonyg said:


> I don't know how the mods feel, but politics should be taken elsewhere.
> 
> I'm sure most people don't come here to discuss politics or religious beliefs.


I don't really see where politics comes in.


----------



## tonyg (Apr 10, 2015)

Mayday said:


> I don't really see where politics comes in.


You can't be serious.


----------



## Mayday (Apr 10, 2015)

tonyg said:


> You can't be serious.


I am. It can of course go that direction if people take it there but it doesn't need to.

Here is another site but this one apparently all information is verifiable, but I have not had time to go through it yet.

http://divulgence.net/



> A tilt/wobble is a natural occurance and common, However, it wouldn't have the effect that California currently is in. However, once again most astronomers would have seen this and a tilt/wobble could be proven.


Apparently if you take the time to check yourself which is quite easy than it is easy to prove that it is quite far off. Have a search on the second link for:

Axis Changes versus star positions

And also for "have blocked the onshore flow of rain into California"

I am not saying I believe this stuff but I do find much of it interesting and will look into it further before drawing any conclusion.


----------



## HalfEatenPie (Apr 11, 2015)

Ok so... For my "full-time" job I'm a water resources scientist who focuses on climate change. This is my field of study in Academia and we work on developing cutting edge technology for climate change adaptation and research.

The original article your article is referencing is here: http://www.thebigwobble.org/2014/12/their-sky-has-changed-inuit-elders.html

I find this entire thing pretty ridiculous. Oh and also very "tinfoil hat" like. They claim there's "science" behind it and yet when I look into it further all I see is coincidences and data point outliers. I have yet to see solid evidence or even an equation in relation to the methodology.

To give you an idea of what's going on in Climate Change research... One of the leading groups for climate change research is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). They perform an assessment every 5 to 7 years (publishing it as an Assessment Report) and gives a "snapshot" of what's going on plus parameters for research. One of the awesome things the Assessment Reports give is GCMs. GCMs, General Circulation Models, are "numerical models representing physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface". These are the most advanced tools currently available for simulating the response of the global climate system to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (Source).

We get a GCM for multiple scenarios, such as high CO2 generation scenario, low CO2 generation, etc because we don't know what it's going to be. Due to limitations with our current technology, climate change isn't deterministic, it's probabilistic. We can't say for certain "it's going to rain tomorrow". This is why the weatherman on the television says "there's a 15% chance it will rain tomorrow". This is a limitation of our current technology. Anyways, these models frequently run on a daily time-step usually to a max of 100 years (usually up to 2100) (sometimes monthly time-step if we're going longer or want to cut down on computational costs). Mostly because these models are physically based models (and not conceptual models), they require vast amount of data and require a large amount of computational power. However, the output is data with a resolution of 250 km by 250 km (this means the a VERY varied area is assumed to be an average value of a single square) depending on which GCM Model you're using (there's many ways with different equations, one may provide better data output for the United States whereas another provides better data output for China... there's a TON). Now when we're observing the effects of climate change globally that's all fine and dandy, but all the important questions require a much finer level of detail. Therefore, we can apply statistical downscaling methods or dynamical downscaling methods (You can find out the difference between the two here: https://gisclimatechange.ucar.edu/question/63). These downscaling techniques (depending on what model you're using away) increases the resolution of the dataset, however again frequently requires extensive computational power. With the final downscaled data... we NOW perform our own disciplinary analysis (whether it be hydrology, climatology, etc.). As you can tell, this is VERY resource intensive... Something governments all around the world invest heavily on... We'll get back to the significance of this in a bit.

In addition, a colleague of mine's recent research involved comparing the accuracy between conceptual models and physical models (in terms of Hydrology and Climate Change studies). Just for definition purposes, a physical model is a model of the physical process and commonly requires a large amount of physical data whereas a conceptual model focuses on the concept of water balance and utilizes less historical data. My colleague's research states that a conceptual model, which is not as data intensive as the physical model, has a better accuracy when it comes to forecasts (predictions). Effectively saying that having more data can actually be harmful for climate change studies since future conditions are constantly changing and we can't predict the future. To give an analogy, why build a house for a small person when a big person could potentially move in? More than likely, it could be suggested that the "axis shift" may have such a marginal effect that it's not worth adding an additional parameter to our models (yes you may think that an axis shift could have a major effect but so far by our knowledge and technology this does not seem to be the case).

Now the reason why I went in-depth (well... that is really just the tip of the iceberg but it doesn't really do anything if I go into more detail for this topic) about what we do is to show how detailed we are at making sure the initial data values are... as right as possible. It's not perfect, and we lack the technology for even finer data resolution, however it's the best thing we have right now. Since so many resources are invested in generating the GCMs (which are by the way multi-million dollars projects) and since we (as an international community) are generating them fairly regularly (every 5-7 years) with different models... you see where I'm going with this... We want to make sure what we're doing is as right as possible. Therefore, each model is constantly tweaked and/or studied to try and see the best accuracy available. If the axis shift did affect climate change (in a massive way as depicted in the article), then we probably would have already added it into our data. This isn't some government conspiracy to "cover" something up. It's simply critical thinking.

Anyways, to sum it all up and to bring my brain garble to a conclusion.

1. It's probably not relevant to climate change studies

2. If it is, then it's effects are probably marginal.

3. It's probably outside the scope/scale of our climate models anyways

4. As a Climate Change researcher, this is pretty ridiculous and is very tin-foil-hat-like crazy.

If anyone wants more detail (since this is a research topic I absolutely enjoy and have fun working with) feel free to ask. However from the data I work with and from the research I do, I have yet to find this "wobble" to be relevant.

Note: I am paid for by my local government for climate change research. However, I was not paid to type up this messy post.

*Edit:* Came back to re-read this and... damn. Edited it a little bit plus added a little more content here and there.


----------



## drmike (Apr 13, 2015)

Effect that sun, planets and other space "stuff" has on the planet is big big pile of change on this planet.  Sun can cook us all to death and ruin this planet in rather simple fashion I imagine.  Likewise, less active cycles of the sun and reduced sun love for us results in well, a cooling effect.

Right now it's not warming or cooling, it's just changing and swinging erratically.   I see models that say we had the warmest winter globally.    Big place to measure, so I am not doubting that.  Localized horror of winter in large northern areas was pronounced.  Such is the view of a pimple on the surface of the planet 

CO2 plays some role but is offset by plants thriving.  Water vapor in upper surface layers and jet streams is bound to create as much havoc as CO2 ever could, probably a good bit more.  Refers to ocean currents, water vapor from such and the El Nino and El Nina(?) ocean matters that were past decade all the rage in the States.  Very possible some of these currents like the one in the North Atlantic between the US and Europe have slowed or stopped or changed...

Lots of theories about what is going on and why things are abnormal.   

I bank on the sun always being the culprit or lead cause.  Someone needs to measure earth core temperatures even if from space - well space and via subsurface somehow.  Could be gravitational heat contributing from pull from sun and other objects (been some reports of things not in view to eyeballs applying force to our galaxy).

We all ought to be more concerned about polluting the planet with above surface radioactivity which has a bad habit of wrecking the ozone layer which in turn wrecks life on the planet.

California water - bahaha.   It's a semi arid dessert at best.  Always has been in California.  Pronounced droughts all through modern history.  Problem is their greedy over development coupled with inability to realize they have plenty of water ---> IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN.  Removing the salt from the water can be done and likely with just good ole sunlight.

Beyond that, the land use insanity of green lawns (which you can't eat) in Cali is dumb.  Places should look like the dessert they are.  But then again, the water regulations recently put into place limit use by civilians - the 20% of total use, while ignoring the 80% of total use by agriculture and oil companies.

Agriculture in Cali is retarded.   Seeing that fail would be good to the health of people globally.  Ditto for oil big picture. Barren fields bulldozed, miles of row crops, pesticided and sprayed  to death aren't sustainable... They are more akin to strip mining.  The soil is dead, enriched usually with just three items that plants need to APPEAR to grow healthily - P-N-K.

Cali folks better start making migration plans.


----------

