Other

Design of Buildings with Fabric

“O Lord my God, you are very great!
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
covering yourself with light as with a garment,
stretching out the heavens like a tent.” – Psalm 104, 1-2 ESV

Ultimately, the joy of studying textiles and working with fabric applies to my interest in structures — whether handbags or buildings. Fabrics are incredibly flexible, and their wear strength and shear strength are phenomenal. This comes from the shared load of tension across more than one direction.

“Fabric,” of course, includes any woven material, not just wool, cotton, and clothing materials.  While we generally think of fabric as a plane, it can be woven zig-zags, trusses, etc. as well.

Simple fabric weaves, like the woven plastic straps that create a lawn chair, transfer loads in two directions. Straps of fabric go both side to side (weft) and front to back (warp.), Wherever you sit, your body weight is carried in both directions. Not only that, but the tension becomes a compression on the next piece of plastic, which then translates to the tension on that next strap. In other words, the load transfer is not linear, but bidirectional. As this bidirectional shift in loads occurs, the weight transfer continues to travel, creating a virtually circular distribution that ultimately extends to the very edges.

This non-linear aspect of fabric results from changes in geometry that occur under load, even though the materials remain linearly elastic.

This change in geometry creates a wonderful quality. If properly designed, the load bearing capacity of stretched fabric increases to carry loads as the fabric deforms. In fact, these structures are capable of maintaining a very high ratio of applied loads to self-weight, in contrast to steel, concrete. or other rigid structures of the same spans.

Make no mistake. The design possibilities are enormous to an almost ridiculous level, and perhaps even more surprising, the engineering limitations are virtually non-existent. It is almost a safe statement that the engineering possibilities in the mechanical, structural, design, appearance, or textural use of fabric are limitless!  (Imagine tapping into the “fabric of light” and “stretching the heavens as a tent”!  While that is God’s domain, we probably have a taste of it available to us.)

The primary challenge of using fabric is the relatively quick decay of materials used, meaning that fabric, while incredibly strong and flexible, has to be replaced quite often. The decay results primarily from UV radiation and from the extremely high surface area of the fabric to thickness. By nature, fabric is made of individual strands, woven into a moderately solid sheet. Every “thread” is almost completely and thoroughly exposed to decay factors. Decay results in significant changes in the fabric. Loss of tensile strength, flexibility, and shear can be catastrophic.

To me, this calls for a very simple (in theory) solution: Better fabric materials! By combining the use of surface coatings, shifting the insulation to the exterior and the interior, and adding a second layer of “roof” or external covering to absorb the UV and atmospheric gases can protect the fabric from corrosives by simply reducing contact, etc.  It may also be possible to create the fabric assembly to be suspended in a very light hydraulic fluid or inert gas so that it can be repaired or replaced by simply sliding out the old or damaged section without significant disassembly of the entire structure.

Of course, fabric is only useful in tension, not compression, but consider how this could be resolved by massing fabric into compressive bundles like bolts of fabric, stiffened by . . . tension! — pulling the fabric very tightly around itself, or around a rigid core, increasing the compression to take advantage of its greatest asset, namely, using tension to form a compression reaction in opposition. The resulting posts would have all the tensile characteristics of fabric, making them almost infinitely flexible while providing tremendous strength from the non-linear tension holding them.

This is not an essentially novel idea – just not fully implemented. Fabric has been with us forever. It is suggested in the nature of steel reinforced concrete, where steel grids and cables add the tension that concrete lacks, and concrete provides the compression resistance that can limit steel. It is also used for some domes and other roof structures. Converting steel cables to interconnected fabric would solve all the existing problems in current practices of pre- and post-stressing concrete.

Another great benefit of such innovation is weight reduction. If a structure that requires 100 tons of concrete, say, were reduced to a comparative weight of 20 tons, and gained the flex and load distributing properties of fabric, you could theoretically gain an additional 80 tons of support and load capacity for the contents of the structure without an overall change in weight. Improved stability and flexibility of a fabric foundation, and the use of adjacent structures (primarily roads, sidewalks, and parking lots) as part of the fabric foundation in building design would bear weight normally transferred directly to the ground structures directly beneath a building or other structure.

One final note on fabric as a building material is cost. Steel and concrete are reasonably cheap. Way outside of my capacity, however, are cost estimates over time. If load capacity, stability, duration, safety and design can be improved or “solved,” we are in a solid position to make headway and some needed change.

Consider that the last 30 years have yielded an increase of triple the number of deaths from natural disasters. We have witnessed structural failure and loss of service to buildings and other structures like towers, dams and bridges (meaning displacement and isolattion of populations, loss of production, storage, utilities, communication, transportation and services.) If fabric construction can end or significantly reduce these problems, then building costs plummet.

A Christian’s Options

This is the third article in the series, following Church Money Problems

Obviously, Christianity requires fellowship.  We are commanded “forsake not the gathering of the saints.”  We can’t do it alone.  How, then, do we find the “right” fellowship and gathering?

The answer we created for ourselves is more difficult and complicated than it should be.  (Our attitude should be, “I am a member of all the Christians in <my home town>.)  First, because we splintered ourselves into pigeon-hole groups of generally myopic focus, like, “is the communion actually, substantially, nearly, or just representative, of His body?” and “Do we sprinkle, dip, pour, or immerse ourselves for real baptism?”  Some say these are very important issues . . . and they are!   We should never stop talking about them until Jesus returns.  But we did stop talking when we separated.  Now, we just do it the way our denomination always did it, and ignore those who do it differently.  Without a thought.

Then we went a step beyond reason.  We let people who had no business in the pulpit or in leadership preach and lead, and took on “members” who are not members of Christ’s body!  Rather than inviting and encouraging them to attend, we signed them up to “share” in the direction and administration of the body.  That’s somewhere between letting kindergartner’s teach the class, and having prisoners control the jail.

Can we get back to something healthy?  Yes, of course!  It seems, however, that we might have to recreate the fellowship — and not through another denomination!  We need to work at de-denominating.  I spent six years preaching in a small country church.  It had been a Wesleyan fellowship, that dropped the “official” title and took on a Methodist minister, then a few variable denominational and independent baptists, then a Pilgrim Holiness preacher, then me.  Whatever I am.  Christian.  It was small enough to adapt, and bold enough to call out challenges during my sermons.  Usually spot on, valuable questions, and often embarrassing.

<Your denomination here> needs that.  If not in the way our little congregation “took what they could get,” but there is plenty of room for Christian “guests” in your pulpit, and Christian “guests” in their pews.  Guests who can and will challenge strange doctrines.  Make noise, but be polite.

If your denomination is “corporate,” you may have to resort to radical means.  “If you will not address this issue in a theologically sound Christian manner, pastor, I will send my weekly tithes and offerings to third world countries that will use it preach the Gospel and serve a needy community.”

Our piddling $50 goes a long way when we get to send it to Christian orphanages in Africa and Pakistan.  It hardly affects whatever fellowship we have joined, but a dozen people like us might make a difference.  100 would.  1,000 might create a vital revolution.  Let the interlopers, anti-Christian, and syncretists have it.

10,000 unitarian, agnostic, and other strange fellowships will not harm the body of Christ, until and unless they run Christ’s Church on earth.  Continued participation works against the whole Church of God, breaks it up more and more, little by little, and might really bring back the first Century faith, with real Christians gathering secretly in the shadows and being fed to the lions.

 

Church Money Problems

This article is the Second in a Series. Start here.

Wealth, especially property, becomes important to any of man’s organizations.  It has always been so.  We read of greed in the story of Abraham, and subsequent Bible stories, including Judas Iscariot, right up to Ananias and Sapphira’s lie about “giving all” in The Acts of the Apostles.

Any “real” church (local Christian fellowship) can usually be trusted with its own purse strings, but as soon as it becomes centralized and controlled from afar, it attracts a different crowd.  The new crowd may start honestly, but the size of the common pot becomes a dreadful lure.  The largest mainstream denominations — Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. — are fine examples.  They want it all, and coordinate their facilities to be “generous and cooperative” in every “mission.”

Judas is the best illustration.  He kept the money.  Is it any real surprise that he was the betrayer?  So, it seems, is the story of big, central organizations.  And make no mistake, denominations are organizations.

Why do we have them? We read in our confessions that “The Church is catholic. . .”  That means “one,” but we are far from one!  By one list, there are 33,000 denominations!  (That includes all “independent” groups as a separate denomination.)  Our long list of denominations include everything from non-believers and Unitarians to syncretist and Agnostic fellowships that have no Bibles to be found.  The unifying element of most is a desire to “assemble” regularly (forsake it not!) and take an “offering.”  (Give generously!”

Generally speaking, denominations are a consortium of like-minded believers who contribute to a central pool for mutual support, common books, hymnals and literature sources and authors, shared resources, coordinated legal and ethical power, and the ability to allow “transfers” as people move about.  “The Umbrella Plan.”

Some denominations restrict their purse-strings so carefully that every dollar you give is the property of the denomination, which then re-designates a pittance to the local congregation — a Marxist system.  Others have the essence of a “license” to operate in their name, with virtually no qualifications for accuracy or doctrine.  Most are included in a category of “other,” which includes everything in between.

What does the big corporate structure attract?  Administrators and accountants, directors, lawyers, poll takers, radicals, reformers, and those with a large salary as a primary motivation. (Theologians are cheap, and they get to do whatever they like in these corporations. What they come up with is seldom considered anyway.)

Special interests have become vigorously organized competitors in that denominational fray.  Political, economic, and lifestyle reformers being chief among them.  “Growth experts” have their own place — some are even Bible reading Christ-believers, jaundiced by a job title that may not fit the established doctrine.  No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” – Matthew 6:24

How can a Christian compete?  Spoiler alert: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”.”

Next: A Christian’s Options

Church Considerations

The Church is often considered the place where worship occurs, as in “where do you go to church?”  It is a problem that may be central to many, if not most, church problems. Reserve your venom against me until the end of this series, because I am not suggesting the elimination of denominations, nor an abhorrence of religious buildings, but please give this series prayerful thought:

At the very foundation of any 501(c)3 “church” there is a problem of property, wealth, salaries, and denominational bickering that serves too often as a division. Consider Luke’s account of the payment of taxes.

Jesus “perceived their craftiness” in trying to escape paying taxes, and He said, “‘Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied.Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’

What is the Church?  The Church proper is the body of Christ.  The whole body of Christ. Jesus says this very clearly in Matthew’s Gospel, 16:13-19:

Jesus said to Peter, “’But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’  And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus built the church on a man.  Peter means “rock.” No mention of wealth. No statement of power. As Paul told Timothy, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” As Christians, our wealth is stored up in heaven.  At least theoretically, right?

The Episcopal Church has several hideous examples many of us have seen.  I spent several years in a “formerly Episcopal, now Anglican” congregation.  That church had property stolen and the Pastor and his family were locked out in the street because of nonconformity to corrupt doctrine.  I also have a friend who was defrocked by the Methodist Church and kicked off the property for teaching “Calvinist heresy.” (They did not call it that, but there is no clearer term for some of his Bible Studies.)

My own “Youth Pastor” as a young teen in the (Congregational) United Church of Christ was a homosexual. He moved to South Dakota. He came back to “take me to lunch,” and propositioned me to be his house boy on my 18th birthday.  I was not a Christian (nor was the congregation.), I was also not a homosexual.  He did not care about that. He offered me money, a job, and a nice place to live. I left, got drunk, and egged his rental car.

How can we understand these things?  Corruption?  Oh, yes.  Unbridled power? Absolutely. Foolishness, ignorance, and rabid ambition? Yep. Lack of accountability. Sure. Sinful human nature? Right at the core. All that and more. But all of this begs the question: “Why? And how?”

All of these examples are built on three specific problems: Property, Income, and Authority. You can not “buy off a Christian,” but you can buy the deed to ourr property and control all of its activities. Actually, focus on one specific problem: That name on the coin. Jesus perceives the craftiness.

Continued tomorrow.
Next article in the Series: Church Money Problems

Only Bible Study for Now

If this blog is to continue, it will focus on one exclusive topic.  I choose Bible Study, for a lot of good reasons. I choose to start with errors that are destroying the visible, denominational Church.

This page went dormant a couple of  months ago, for a few very good reasons.  The new entries fell off because the blog was not being read.  Knowing that I can write, and knowing that the material was sound and accurate, led to a number of conclusions.

What is most important generally fails to seem important until we know it actually is important.  We, the People, prefer to fight in active battles rather than consider why we fight. or ultimately, what we’re fighting to achieve.  At one point the hits on this page soared because I was addressing a huge headline capturing event.  Readership settled immediately to a terrible low after that.  Low enough not to bother.

Some vital thoughts are hard to grasp.  At least they were for me.  Trying to briefly explain them is important because the ideas are worth understanding.  They should be foundational anchors for everything that follows.  Most foundational issues are difficult, and we often think we already “know enough.”

I certainly understand the idea that “this is hard, and I have no interest in the remote history or deep foundations for what I already believe.”  But that never makes up for the importance of it.  A solid foundation prevents cracks in our understanding.  Cracks that can lead to complete collapse.

I also have presented ideas unknown in the mainstream — even inconsistent with fringe thinking. Yet those ideas are the foundation for everything we tend to believe. I guess you have to discover their importance in order to look for them, and those might just be the limited readership that still find this blog.  I hope so, and I am leaving everything here for those people who really want to know.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I write what I know, and only what I know.  I am somewhat eclectic. That has meant an inconsistent blog.  If somebody finds a “good thought” on my page, they might return to see something totally obscure and unrelated.

I’m not tech savvy.  Some day it would be nice to figure out how I can separate my material more practically, so readers who are interested in a life with Type I diabetes or soil science or Christian cultural stuff or Political stuff don’t have to see each other. Now I sew hiking gear because I hike. That could turn away ther rest of my readership.

In the meanwhile, due to my greatest interest of life, and because of an important new “cause” I am participating in, the next several posts (at least) will only concern themselves with Scripture, Biblical perspective, Christian culture, and the love of Jesus Christ. The most important stuff in the world.

Choosing Scripture as the exclusive subject of this blog might just completely break davedelany.com, or it might cure the problem.  At this point, I may have a new connection to readers who may benefit, and that is what it’s all about.  I don’t do this “just to be heard.”  I write because it would be a shame to go to my grave wasting the entire history of everything I’ve studied, and that’s what I do. Study. Learn. Study. Learn.

I plan to start with a very important contemporary issue: Social justice vs Christian justice vs Earthly justice.  They are not the same. Not even close.

Social Justice NewSpeak?

Social Justice.  It sounds like something very good!  How can any reasonable person not want something as noble sounding as “social justice“?  We are social animals, and we all love justice, right?

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?  . . . Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”  – George Owell, 1984

Social Justice is comprised of two Newspeak words that mean the opposite of what they actually mean. In practice, Social here means antisocial, and Justice means retribution.

When a Christian uses the word “social,” it means “interpersonal, relations within society. “Justice” means “fairness, impartiality, objectivity, lack of prejudice, and equality of application to any and all individuals.”  In essence, “All men are created equal.”

When a court of human law uses “social,” it means “living in community, whether intentional or not; the whole of society.”  “Justice” in law means the same principles as those listed for Christian Justice, with emphasis on “equity and impartiality, ‘without distinction or prejudice’.”  In essence, “the same, without mitigation.”

In “social justice,” “social” means “collective groups of racial, sexual, religious, financially or geographically isolated, or political groups.”  “Justice” means equality of results, redistribution, collective prejudice, disregard for the individual, and unearned reward.”  In essence, “mutual outcome.”

To a Christian, that should suggest either “We’re all going to heaven,” or “nobody is going to heaven.”  No distinction.  No individual right or reward.  Just groups.

Christians find “justice” as a translation of the Hebrew word, “tzedek.” Tzedek means righteousness (justice, to do right), as in Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”  In fact, the most closely related word to tzedek is tzedekah, or “charity.” That is the Christian view.  Jesus is just.  Jesus is our justice.

The origin of judicial “justice” is just that.  “To do right.”  Equality to all individuals; “impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” (Webster)  Notice the word, “merited.”  that word is insignificant to Social Justice.

Social justice calls for an “egalitarian society.”  Egalitarian means “human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs of groups, without individual right or claims of merit or circumstance.”

And again, “social justice” is antisocial injustice.  Newspeak.  Make no mistake: there is no charity or individual right in social justice.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  So-called Social Justice is prejudicial, unfair, inequitable, destructive, and leads to bigotry, war, isolation, individual and collective losses, and the breakdown of society, reason, and justice.  It robs society of ambition, reason, purpose, and righteousness and reward.

Orwell coined NewSpeak to reflect the will of the controlling Party. The “Party” chooses which antonym of a word to use. By choosing which words we can use, The Party chooses how to shift thought in a more positive or negative direction to suit their will and their needs.  Is Social Justice the will of The Party?  You decide.

Type I Diabetes n Me

In 1st grade, my “behavioral problem” of peeing many times per day turned into a trip to the principal’s office from my first grade classroom.  I wish it could have been 40 lashes less one for mercy, but no.  At that point I was still a good kid, so mom took me to Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan, to my new doctor.

He told me, “You’ll be staying with us for a while, young man.”  I got excited.  It sounded fun!  It was, I suppose, except for all the shots and blood draws. Man, the things you can do with wheelchairs, unlocked gurneys, meal trays and bedpans when you’re a kid!

It became somewhat “normal” to wind up in Ford Hospital for a month or so each year over the next six years, but everything else was a fairly average childhood: school, camping, bike riding, wrestling, mud fights, football, minibikes, dogs, friends, family, and shots every morning.

I joined a Type I Diabetes support group last night, and now see a crystal clear way to support people with a similar problem.  Every once in a while I have really good advice, and usually a few laughs and tales of endurance over the many, many (many) times I survived when absolutely no one thought this was a very good idea.

In about 1966 my mother stopped trying to “control my diabetes.”  She kept giving me shots, of course, and prepared healthy food, but she also figured out that her tight controls and “doctors orders” were killing me.

Besides, everybody knew I wasn’t going to live very long.

Throughout life, when folks found out I was diabetic they’d say, first off, “MY UNCLE DIED OF THAT,” “MY GRANDMA HAS NO FEET AND SHE’S BLIND ‘CUZ OF DIABETES,” or the gentle one, “OH, I’M SO SORRY!”  These were “nice people.”  (“Where do you think your depression comes from, Dave?” Oh, I don’t know.)

People who have Type I diabetes — just like everyone else — get what we get.  We either deal with it, or we deal with the consequences.  I have found that many times, consequences were the better choice.

It’s only experience, remember (NOT advice) but I’m pretty sure you’ll react to it all in one way or another.  I’m pretty excited about this blog, though it might offend more people than a normal serving of politics or religion.

If there is a particular aspect of diabetic living you are interested in, just ask in the comment section.  I might just tell you not to deal with it the way I did 40 or 50 years ago, but I will say something.  So far, at least, I haven’t died of it.

What is an Invasion?

Generally, an “invasion” requires military involvement, but not always.  Invasion does include military objectives or force sufficient to overwhelm a land’s defenses.  King Hassan sent the so-called Green March invasion force of starving refugees to win political victory over the entrenched Spanish troops.  It is not important to debate that 1975 invasion here.  I take no political side in that affair.  It is just a great example of a non-violent invasion, not too different from what we have at our Southern border.

The Moroccan invasion resulted in lots of bloodshed and violence on all sides.  It also seized huge investments by both the Spanish and Angolans. Clever at the time, it resulted in a long, bloody war.  No mistake, it was definitely an invasion like ours at the Southern border.

Webster wrote the first American dictionary to make certain the words of the new Republic were recorded, in part to “record the variance” between American and English, and partly to assure a precise account of “the republican debate for future generations.”  Invasion was far more to our founders than merely military, but also any hostile entry into our lands to usurp the rights or property of our citizens, or to enter illegally with a view to plunder rights or privileges.

This is no longer in our dictionaries, but it remains in the context of our Founder’s intentions, and part of the definition of what President Trump is facing at our Southern border.

It is such a delight to the corrupt leadership of the Democrat Party that they want to stop him at any cost.  If a few million more illegal invaders can slip in, what’s to stop them from re-inventing and redefining America?  Invasion is the correct name for what is happening at our Southern border.  Those who support the invasion in our halls of Congress are just as bad, but there we call it treason.

 

How to Give

I deem it the duty of every man to devote a certain portion of his income for charitable purposes; and that it is his further duty to see it so applied as to do the most good of which it is capable. This I believe to be best insured, by keeping within the circle of his own inquiry and information the subjects of distress to whose relief his contributions shall be applied.” – Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson would never compel charitable giving.  He considered it an individual’s “duty.”  A duty is a moral obligation or responsibility, like voting in a free republic, or protecting one’s family.

The circle of his own inquiry” suggests what we might call “doing our own research.”  Doing good involves doing the most good, in Jefferson’s opinion.  That can mean finding the most pathetic and downtrodden, weakest and most vulnerable, defenseless or nearest death individuals.  Or it may mean a few dollars here there to dozens of struggling businesses.  Or maybe a single donation each year to an impoverished family for a child’s important operation.

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

In terms of money itself, the only limit on necessity is “more,” so we really can not give too much.  If you think of it in terms of the US Govt, 3,000 billionaires surrendering everything would simply pay a year of status quo taxes. And then the billionaires would all be gone. Paying taxes has nothing to do with charity or good works, but it is another duty . . . within reason.

Two of my primary charities are both orphanages.  One in Kenya, one in Pakistan.  They always need help, and I have watched as they monitor and photograph the lives of the children.  At first it was a kid here and there with a special smile, then the new kids.  The directors with whom the interaction takes place.  The longer I watch, the easier it is to send money through Paypal.  I have no doubt of their good work, the sincerity of their missions in terrible places.

Perhaps most interesting is that both orphanages encourage me to visit.

And I have to admit it is tempting, but if I did visit either of them, it would cost my entire charity budget for more than a year.  And that is how I ultimately know my choices are good ones.

Both directors have repeatedly told me, “The children would be more blessed, excited, and encouraged to meet you than to eat or wear good clothes.”  Let that sink in.

And that means I have to admit I am afraid to go where these incredible people live all day, every day — especially central Pakistan.

George Washington was incredibly generous to individuals, organizations, schools, churches, and missions to poor Americans.  He almost never talked about it, but he did say,  “It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.

There are 26 children in the Kenya orphanage right now.  Every once in a while Director James in the Kenya home writes to me and says, “The kids have nothing to eat today. The pantry is completely empty.”  That sounds like a scam, right?

I no longer believe it a scam, even for a second.  At all.  James told me this morning it costs $32/day to feed the kids if they can buy in bulk for the month, “and that includes the salt, oils and spices. . .”It’s terrible when it gets this bad.  To run out locally and buy a day of food costs $52.

$960 to feed around 26 beautiful kids for a month.  $37 apiece. A buck and a quarter per day.  Add another quarter each day for clothes.

I won’t tell you who they are in this post — in part, for the safety of Munir and the Pakistani children . . . but I would be happy to tell you as part of your personal inquiry!  Do your own research, and I pray you feel really uncomfortable if you do nothing with freedom’s duty.

 

 

 

We’ll All Melt!

“In the past two centuries, many people have hypothesized that the solar irradiance at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere varies. Recent satellite measurements confirm that such variations exist.” – Hoyt and Schatten, NASA Goddard

Their conclusion is that 71% of current climate change can be modeled from just 50% of the solar irradiation changes over the last three centuries.  Just half.

Over a time span of 1,000 years, we found that volcanic eruptions generally correspond with enhanced ice sheet melting within a year or so. . . present day ice sheets are potentially very vulnerable to volcanic eruptions.” – Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Their conclusion is that the frequent and intense eruptions in the 1990s and into this millennium could be sufficient to melt the arctic ice sheet.

Both articles go on to speculate how anthropogenic causes could affect these natural phenomena.  Why would they need to add “man made” to the entirely sufficient organic mix?  Because funding is consistently only paid for, and publication only available to, bad news due to man.  It really is that simple.

The NASA publication asserts their data has a “95% confidence level. To understand our present climate variations, we must place the anthropogenic variations in the context of natural variability from solar, volcanic, oceanic, and other sources.”

The Columbia paper, in turn, speculates that “some might suggest” diminishing ice could cause this increased vulcanism due to loss of weight on the landmass. Of course some might.

Many journalists stay up nights thinking of creative ways to force research into condemning and terrifying continuations of the terror.  I found this one: “New NASA research has found that increases in the rate at which Arctic sea ice grows in the winter may have partially slowed down the decline of the Arctic sea ice cover.”  What?  Does this mean sea ice is returning?  I do believe it does, and so the record shows.

To really understand this, recognize that 70% of sea ice is seasonal.  There has indeed been a series of “big thaws,” but those are offset by a series of “big chills” that “could slow down the extinction of sea ice for decades, or even centuries.”  Could, yes.  It could mean we’ll all die this summer when the average global temperature climbs to 90° Celsius.

You can report that I said that.