Ice Ages

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
So there are a lot of things that influence our climate, and most of those things are totally beyond our control or influence. The only one that is, is the one that nobody wants to get by without, including the Alarmists. Nobody wants to live without the use of cheap energy. But it produces CO2, so the adults on our planet realize that we have to stop producing it, because it's going to warm our planet beyond our ability to survive.

CO2 does not have the ability to warm the planet. It is not an energy source. It is not a magick mirror. It is not a magick insulator.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.

GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.

The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.

The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.

Ice sitting on Greenland or Antarctica melting and spreading all around the globe does redistribute mass.

As does snow falling there faster than it is melting.

Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James, the reason it takes so long for it to cool back into an ice age is because of how long it takes CO2 to be sequestered naturally back into the ground.

GreenMan,
I disagree. When our oceans cool then they absorb CO2. And when they warm they release it. What does make sense is the changing of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But this is getting into astrophysics and I think this is something that people would have trouble understanding.
I have mentioned before that the earth's rotation can either speed up or slow depending on what is happening with our planet warming or cooling. And it is possible that this cycle is something that mankind cannot influence. What people might consider though is that the warmer our planet becomes increases the speed with which the next ice age will happen.

The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.

The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.

Ice sitting on Greenland or Antarctica melting and spreading all around the globe does redistribute mass.

As does snow falling there faster than it is melting.

Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.

Parrot, the difference is you can stack ice. You can't stack water. As you pointed out, water just runs away. Ice doesn't. It just lays there. So as ice accumulates, mass increases. Whether or not the ice is sitting on the water is irrelevant.

I think you might have pulled the wrong denier pistol on that one, lol.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


From you own postings you can also note that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere follow temperature changes on the order of by 800 years. Greenman has the idea that land is somehow involved and not oceans.

Scientists generally agree that the amount of co2 in our oceans is dependent on their temperature. In the 1960's they thought then that co2 levels rose as our planet warmed. Since then improved research techniques has co2 levels rising about 800 years later. Because of this many ice core researchers having been slowly distancing themselves from the statement that co2 levels rose when the last ice age started warming.
This is one example;
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

I think when he says;
In the last 800.000 years there have been 8 ice ages, each lasting approximately 100.000 years

that he means that there is a 100,000 year cycle. And with this;
separated by interglacial periods of between 10.000 and 35.000 years.

how long the warm part between ice ages lasts. The article has been translated from German.

That is a good article. The only thing I would disagree with is the effects of CO2. As he himself said, the levels are higher during warmer Interglacial periods. So if CO2 had any significant effects it would be a positive feedback cycle and there wouldn't be any climate oscillations.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.

The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.

Ice sitting on Greenland or Antarctica melting and spreading all around the globe does redistribute mass.

As does snow falling there faster than it is melting.

Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.

Parrot, the difference is you can stack ice. You can't stack water. As you pointed out, water just runs away. Ice doesn't. It just lays there. So as ice accumulates, mass increases. Whether or not the ice is sitting on the water is irrelevant.

I think you might have pulled the wrong denier pistol on that one, lol.

Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.

The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.

Ice sitting on Greenland or Antarctica melting and spreading all around the globe does redistribute mass.

As does snow falling there faster than it is melting.

Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.

Parrot, the difference is you can stack ice. You can't stack water. As you pointed out, water just runs away. Ice doesn't. It just lays there. So as ice accumulates, mass increases. Whether or not the ice is sitting on the water is irrelevant.

I think you might have pulled the wrong denier pistol on that one, lol.

Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

No. You are, as usual, are simply making stuff up. While it is correct that, in the very long term, the length of the day is gradually increasing as angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the moon, on shorter timescales it is affected by numerous factors including, but by no means limited to, the distribution of ice on the Earth.

A quick glance at a graph of actual measurements at Day length fluctuations shows that the length of the day has, if anything, decreased over the past 50 years or so. It is, however, characterised by large fluctuations on decadal, annual and seasonal timescales.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
The rotation of the arth (day length) is slightly altered by the position of ice mass ove the pole or water at the equator.

This can be measured very accurately. Day length shows clearly that there is an ongoing deposition of ice mass at the poles.

The statement that increased temperatures now will hasten the next ice age needs a lot of support. Or you look like you are talking out of your arse.

The length of one rotation around the Earth is 86400.2 seconds. It has been slowly lengthening. By 2100 the length of rotation will be 86400.2017 seconds. Ice at the poles does not redistribute weight. Ice weighs the same as the water it is made up from.

Our lengthening day is caused by the Moon's tidal forces.

Ice sitting on Greenland or Antarctica melting and spreading all around the globe does redistribute mass.

As does snow falling there faster than it is melting.

Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.

Parrot, the difference is you can stack ice. You can't stack water. As you pointed out, water just runs away. Ice doesn't. It just lays there. So as ice accumulates, mass increases. Whether or not the ice is sitting on the water is irrelevant.

I think you might have pulled the wrong denier pistol on that one, lol.

Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

No. You are, as usual, are simply making stuff up. While it is correct that, in the very long term, the length of the day is gradually increasing as angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the moon, on shorter timescales it is affected by numerous factors including, but by no means limited to, the distribution of ice on the Earth.

A quick glance at a graph of actual measurements at Day length fluctuations shows that the length of the day has, if anything, decreased over the past 50 years or so. It is, however, characterised by large fluctuations on decadal, annual and seasonal timescales.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.

Parrot, the difference is you can stack ice. You can't stack water. As you pointed out, water just runs away. Ice doesn't. It just lays there. So as ice accumulates, mass increases. Whether or not the ice is sitting on the water is irrelevant.

I think you might have pulled the wrong denier pistol on that one, lol.

Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

No. You are, as usual, are simply making stuff up. While it is correct that, in the very long term, the length of the day is gradually increasing as angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the moon, on shorter timescales it is affected by numerous factors including, but by no means limited to, the distribution of ice on the Earth.

A quick glance at a graph of actual measurements at Day length fluctuations shows that the length of the day has, if anything, decreased over the past 50 years or so. It is, however, characterised by large fluctuations on decadal, annual and seasonal timescales.

As usual, you figure Wikipedia is the Oracle of Truth.

Try again.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Ice melting in the large amounts stated by NASA etc does not just soak infinately into the already sodden soil where there is any on Greenland.

Tim the plumber wrote:
If ice melted in the 300Gt/yr range as NASA etc says it does then the effect on the spin rate/day length of the earth would be easily detectable with, as you say, the hyper accurate timing instruments we have.

Surface Detail wrote:
Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth, but it does insist on references to support the information it gives. It is therefore considerably more credible than the unsupported opinion of an internet crackpot like yourself.

Surface Detail wrote:
Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice melting in Greenland just soaks into the Greenland soil or flows to the nearby sea. It basically stays where it is. Ice melting in Antarctica does the same thing. Most of the ice in Antarctica is sea ice, which is just the sea to begin with. When it melts, it's just like any other part of the sea.

Mass is not redistributed much at all by the presence of ice vs water.

We actually do measure the Earth's rotation extremely accurately. We can compare it to the stars. No variation is seen, other than a very slow lengthening of day which is caused by the Moon and the tides. We measure this variation to within milliseconds.

Parrot, the difference is you can stack ice. You can't stack water. As you pointed out, water just runs away. Ice doesn't. It just lays there. So as ice accumulates, mass increases. Whether or not the ice is sitting on the water is irrelevant.

I think you might have pulled the wrong denier pistol on that one, lol.

Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

No. You are, as usual, are simply making stuff up. While it is correct that, in the very long term, the length of the day is gradually increasing as angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the moon, on shorter timescales it is affected by numerous factors including, but by no means limited to, the distribution of ice on the Earth.

A quick glance at a graph of actual measurements at Day length fluctuations shows that the length of the day has, if anything, decreased over the past 50 years or so. It is, however, characterised by large fluctuations on decadal, annual and seasonal timescales.

As usual, you figure Wikipedia is the Oracle of Truth.

Try again.

Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth, but it does insist on references to support the information it gives. It is therefore considerably more credible than the unsupported opinion of an internet crackpot like yourself.

Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

No. You are, as usual, are simply making stuff up. While it is correct that, in the very long term, the length of the day is gradually increasing as angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the moon, on shorter timescales it is affected by numerous factors including, but by no means limited to, the distribution of ice on the Earth.

A quick glance at a graph of actual measurements at Day length fluctuations shows that the length of the day has, if anything, decreased over the past 50 years or so. It is, however, characterised by large fluctuations on decadal, annual and seasonal timescales.

As usual, you figure Wikipedia is the Oracle of Truth.

Try again.

Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth, but it does insist on references to support the information it gives. It is therefore considerably more credible than the unsupported opinion of an internet crackpot like yourself.

Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

The problem is that 1 ms/century simply gets drown out in the noise of the normal fluctuations. Those charts you're showing not only insert a huge amount of noise but they are only showing 40 years.

Do you have a reference that claims that the length of a day is not changing due to gravity drag of the moon? Or that the orbit of the moon isn't slowly expanding?

While I'm sure not supporting nightmare, you seem to be opposing him simply to oppose him.

Surface Detail wrote:

Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

No. You are, as usual, are simply making stuff up. While it is correct that, in the very long term, the length of the day is gradually increasing as angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the moon, on shorter timescales it is affected by numerous factors including, but by no means limited to, the distribution of ice on the Earth.

A quick glance at a graph of actual measurements at Day length fluctuations shows that the length of the day has, if anything, decreased over the past 50 years or so. It is, however, characterised by large fluctuations on decadal, annual and seasonal timescales.

As usual, you figure Wikipedia is the Oracle of Truth.

Try again.

Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth, but it does insist on references to support the information it gives. It is therefore considerably more credible than the unsupported opinion of an internet crackpot like yourself.

Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

The problem is that 1 ms/century simply gets drown out in the noise of the normal fluctuations. Those charts you're showing not only insert a huge amount of noise but they are only showing 40 years.

Do you have a reference that claims that the length of a day is not changing due to gravity drag of the moon? Or that the orbit of the moon isn't slowly expanding?

While I'm sure not supporting nightmare, you seem to be opposing him simply to oppose him.

The charts are not "inserting a huge amount of noise". The top chart is a plot of actual measurements of the Earth's rotation period, while the other charts represent different components of the variation in rotation period.

As I already acknowledged above, the rotation speed of the Earth is indeed slowing on a long timescale due to the transfer of angular momentum to the moon, which is indeed causing the moon's orbit to expand. However, on shorter timescales the rotation of the Earth slows down and speeds up a little as mass is transferred away from or towards the axis of rotation. This happens as a result of factors such as earthquakes, isostatic rebound, core/mantle coupling, atmospheric changes and, yes, melting land ice.

In summary, it is simply wrong for ITN to claim that "nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the moon". Actual measurements show that many changes are happening, superimposed on the slow lengthening of day caused by the moon.

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

SD,
This is an article that considers that momentum is being transferred to the Moon. With me, the slight slowing might have to do with the Earth's orbit around the Sun changing as well as glacial melt changing the moment of inertia. And this in turn effects our warm periods between ice ages.

...deleted unrelated link...

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ice doesn't just sit there. It moves and flows just like water, just not as fast.

We can measure the length of day quite accurately. Nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the Moon.

No. You are, as usual, are simply making stuff up. While it is correct that, in the very long term, the length of the day is gradually increasing as angular momentum is transferred from the Earth to the moon, on shorter timescales it is affected by numerous factors including, but by no means limited to, the distribution of ice on the Earth.

A quick glance at a graph of actual measurements at Day length fluctuations shows that the length of the day has, if anything, decreased over the past 50 years or so. It is, however, characterised by large fluctuations on decadal, annual and seasonal timescales.

As usual, you figure Wikipedia is the Oracle of Truth.

Try again.

Wikipedia is not the Oracle of Truth, but it does insist on references to support the information it gives. It is therefore considerably more credible than the unsupported opinion of an internet crackpot like yourself.

Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

The problem is that 1 ms/century simply gets drown out in the noise of the normal fluctuations. Those charts you're showing not only insert a huge amount of noise but they are only showing 40 years.

Do you have a reference that claims that the length of a day is not changing due to gravity drag of the moon? Or that the orbit of the moon isn't slowly expanding?

While I'm sure not supporting nightmare, you seem to be opposing him simply to oppose him.

The charts are not "inserting a huge amount of noise". The top chart is a plot of actual measurements of the Earth's rotation period, while the other charts represent different components of the variation in rotation period.

As I already acknowledged above, the rotation speed of the Earth is indeed slowing on a long timescale due to the transfer of angular momentum to the moon, which is indeed causing the moon's orbit to expand. However, on shorter timescales the rotation of the Earth slows down and speeds up a little as mass is transferred away from or towards the axis of rotation. This happens as a result of factors such as earthquakes, isostatic rebound, core/mantle coupling, atmospheric changes and, yes, melting land ice.

In summary, it is simply wrong for ITN to claim that "nothing is changing, other than the slow lengthening of day caused by the moon". Actual measurements show that many changes are happening, superimposed on the slow lengthening of day caused by the moon.

How do you know any particular cause results in the fluctuations? You don't.

Melting ice results in water. Water either soaks into the soil or flows into the nearby sea. Big hairy deal.

Fluctuations are not year to year change. Nothing is changing except what is caused by the Moon.

Surface Detail wrote: Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

Surface Detail wrote:
Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Fluctuations are not year to year change. Nothing is changing except what is caused by the Moon.

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Following these references takes us to the website of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service and the following page:

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/LODplot.html?nn=12932

where one finds the following (hopefully!) attached graph, the top plot of which looks very much like that shown on the Wikipedia entry. Do you accept the authenticity of this plot, or do you believe that the folks who measure the Earth's rotation are inventing their data?

SD,
This is an article that considers that momentum is being transferred to the Moon. With me, the slight slowing might have to do with the Earth's orbit around the Sun changing as well as glacial melt changing the moment of inertia. And this in turn effects our warm periods between ice ages.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae695.cfm

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: know anything....

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: know anything....

It is well known that "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.

James_ wrote:
Am curious if more ozone could reduce some of the UV-A solar radiation. Ozone levels are about 30% of pre-1980 industrial levels. Won't load the picture. Scroll down and on the right the UV's will be shown in 3 different colors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... you're going elsewhere soon.

Surface Detail wrote:
Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

You totally miss the point. Yes there are fluctuations in the Earth's rotational periods due to the Milankovitch Cycles and interactions between Sun, Moon, Venus and Mars. Even Jupiter has a measurable effect. But the cycles of all of these sources stabilized hundreds of millions of years ago.

Save for the effects of gravity drag from the moon. The effects of this are so small that although it could be theorized it could not be measured by the time standards available until very recently.

The important measurement though is they use laser radar ranging. These lasers can hold a frequency much better than any normal radar. Then with super accurate clocks you measure these variations in distance between the Earth and the Moon.

What you showed were rotational differences in the length of the day on Earth. But the distance to the Moon has much smaller cyclic variations and this is far more easily measured with far greater accuracy.

Why would you find that difficult to understand?

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

You totally miss the point. Yes there are fluctuations in the Earth's rotational periods due to the Milankovitch Cycles and interactions between Sun, Moon, Venus and Mars. Even Jupiter has a measurable effect. But the cycles of all of these sources stabilized hundreds of millions of years ago.

Save for the effects of gravity drag from the moon. The effects of this are so small that although it could be theorized it could not be measured by the time standards available until very recently.

The important measurement though is they use laser radar ranging. These lasers can hold a frequency much better than any normal radar. Then with super accurate clocks you measure these variations in distance between the Earth and the Moon.

What you showed were rotational differences in the length of the day on Earth. But the distance to the Moon has much smaller cyclic variations and this is far more easily measured with far greater accuracy.

Why would you find that difficult to understand?

Wake,
I'll have to ask AB Hammer, he's like really smart and will becoming to this forum. He is also a theologian who knows what the Bible says and only he is right. Myself being ignorant will say changing the rotational velocity of the earth changes it's kinetic energy and gets into theoretical physics. This is probably because this affects the earth's gravitational field. And this might explain the slight shifts in the Moon's orbit. AB Hammer will have to say for sure. I'm sending him a link so he can explain these things to us.

@All, I am using these few posts to show how IMHO an Alan Bauldree (AB Hammer) of Homer, La, USA wants me to post. This way when he explains things it will be because he knows it and not myself. And he is smarter than I am. If you ask him he will say I am right about that.

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... you're going elsewhere soon.

Oh, good. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is doin' its forceful un-best to get me to leave "climate-debate". "wake-me-up" said any second now.......... any second now.......any second now.....second now.......... any second now.......any second now.....second now.......... any second now.......any second now.....second now.......... any second now.......any second now.....second now.......... any second now.......any second now.....
.
.
.
.
any second now!

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

You totally miss the point. Yes there are fluctuations in the Earth's rotational periods due to the Milankovitch Cycles and interactions between Sun, Moon, Venus and Mars. Even Jupiter has a measurable effect. But the cycles of all of these sources stabilized hundreds of millions of years ago.

Save for the effects of gravity drag from the moon. The effects of this are so small that although it could be theorized it could not be measured by the time standards available until very recently.

The important measurement though is they use laser radar ranging. These lasers can hold a frequency much better than any normal radar. Then with super accurate clocks you measure these variations in distance between the Earth and the Moon.

What you showed were rotational differences in the length of the day on Earth. But the distance to the Moon has much smaller cyclic variations and this is far more easily measured with far greater accuracy.

Why would you find that difficult to understand?

Wake,
I'll have to ask AB Hammer, he's like really smart and will becoming to this forum. He is also a theologian who knows what the Bible says and only he is right. Myself being ignorant will say changing the rotational velocity of the earth changes it's kinetic energy and gets into theoretical physics. This is probably because this affects the earth's gravitational field. And this might explain the slight shifts in the Moon's orbit. AB Hammer will have to say for sure. I'm sending him a link so he can explain these things to us.

@All, I am using these few posts to show how IMHO an Alan Bauldree (AB Hammer) of Homer, La, USA wants me to post. This way when he explains things it will be because he knows it and not myself. And he is smarter than I am. If you ask him he will say I am right about that.

When he comes to this forum, I will have the discussion with him.

In the meantime, I am having the discussion with YOU. Do you have ANY argument of your own?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

You totally miss the point. Yes there are fluctuations in the Earth's rotational periods due to the Milankovitch Cycles and interactions between Sun, Moon, Venus and Mars. Even Jupiter has a measurable effect. But the cycles of all of these sources stabilized hundreds of millions of years ago.

Save for the effects of gravity drag from the moon. The effects of this are so small that although it could be theorized it could not be measured by the time standards available until very recently.

The important measurement though is they use laser radar ranging. These lasers can hold a frequency much better than any normal radar. Then with super accurate clocks you measure these variations in distance between the Earth and the Moon.

What you showed were rotational differences in the length of the day on Earth. But the distance to the Moon has much smaller cyclic variations and this is far more easily measured with far greater accuracy.

Why would you find that difficult to understand?

Wake,
I'll have to ask AB Hammer, he's like really smart and will becoming to this forum. He is also a theologian who knows what the Bible says and only he is right. Myself being ignorant will say changing the rotational velocity of the earth changes it's kinetic energy and gets into theoretical physics. This is probably because this affects the earth's gravitational field. And this might explain the slight shifts in the Moon's orbit. AB Hammer will have to say for sure. I'm sending him a link so he can explain these things to us.

@All, I am using these few posts to show how IMHO an Alan Bauldree (AB Hammer) of Homer, La, USA wants me to post. This way when he explains things it will be because he knows it and not myself. And he is smarter than I am. If you ask him he will say I am right about that.

When he comes to this forum, I will have the discussion with him.

In the meantime, I am having the discussion with YOU. Do you have ANY argument of your own?

He has to approve of what I post online.

James_ wrote: He has to approve of what I post online.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: He has to approve of what I post online.

James - are you sniveling to someone else about them bullying you? You still have some pretty screwy ideas about some things so when someone tries to correct you it's up to you to actually study what they say and look these things up.

If they are wrong that's their fault. And if you are wrong at least BE corrected.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: He has to approve of what I post online.

James - are you sniveling to someone else about them bullying you? You still have some pretty screwy ideas about some things so when someone tries to correct you it's up to you to actually study what they say and look these things up.

If they are wrong that's their fault. And if you are wrong at least BE corrected.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Your insistence that only the moon can change the rotation rate of the Earth defies logic. We know from measurement that the rotation rate of the Earth sometimes increases. There is no mechanism by which the moon can increase the rotation rate of the Earth. Ergo, other factors must also influence the rotation rate of the Earth.

You totally miss the point. Yes there are fluctuations in the Earth's rotational periods due to the Milankovitch Cycles and interactions between Sun, Moon, Venus and Mars. Even Jupiter has a measurable effect. But the cycles of all of these sources stabilized hundreds of millions of years ago.

Save for the effects of gravity drag from the moon. The effects of this are so small that although it could be theorized it could not be measured by the time standards available until very recently.

The important measurement though is they use laser radar ranging. These lasers can hold a frequency much better than any normal radar. Then with super accurate clocks you measure these variations in distance between the Earth and the Moon.

What you showed were rotational differences in the length of the day on Earth. But the distance to the Moon has much smaller cyclic variations and this is far more easily measured with far greater accuracy.

Why would you find that difficult to understand?

Surface Detail wrote:
For example, the Earth is currently rotating faster than it was in 1970, so that a modern day is roughly 1ms shorter than it was then.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: He has to approve of what I post online.

James - are you sniveling to someone else about them bullying you? You still have some pretty screwy ideas about some things so when someone tries to correct you it's up to you to actually study what they say and look these things up.

If they are wrong that's their fault. And if you are wrong at least BE corrected.

Wake,
I need surgery. I don't feel well. One thing about hammer made me aware of is that people don't care.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
For example, the Earth is currently rotating faster than it was in 1970, so that a modern day is roughly 1ms shorter than it was then.

No, it is not. National time coordinate stations disagree with you.