Remember me
▼ Content

Planet earth is a spinning top



Page 3 of 3<123
16-11-2015 21:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
*Ice***** - Cubic Km Ice **** - Total Kg Ice **** - % to Earth


Greenland * 2,850,000 Km^3, * 2.61915E+18 Kg, * 0000427%
Antarctica * 26,500,000 Km^3, * 2.43535E+19 Kg, * 000397%
16-11-2015 23:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
IBdaMann wrote:
*Ice***** - Cubic Km Ice **** - Total Kg Ice **** - % to Earth


Greenland * 2,850,000 Km^3, * 2.61915E+18 Kg, * 0000427%
Antarctica * 26,500,000 Km^3, * 2.43535E+19 Kg, * 000397%


This is assuming, of course, that the entire mass of ice (or water) moves to somewhere else.

If any of the ice melts resulting in water that just soaks into the land or stays in the same place as the sea it melted in, then you have to correct these values to even smaller percentages, since only the material that actually moved to somewhere else would make a difference.

Thanks for showing how important this subject really is.
Edited on 16-11-2015 23:16
17-11-2015 02:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@still learning - the melting of ice off of Antarctica in such a short period of time will be a new phenomena, with a proportionately rapid rebound (unlike those in the past record) leading to significant increase of volcanic activity at tectonic divergent boundaries, and major earthquake activity at both divergent and convergent boundaries. So there's not much in the geological record to compare it to.

Perhaps you can consider the rebound recently seen in California from the water loss there to give an idea:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/21/us-usa-drought-west-idUSKBN0GL2AY20140821

The comparison ratio from California to Antarctica is about 1:100,000 (i.e. - multiply "slight" by 100,000).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 17-11-2015 02:17
17-11-2015 02:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
trafn wrote:- the melting of ice off of Antarctica in such a short period of time will be a new phenomena, with a proportionately rapid rebound (unlike those in the past record) leading to significant increase of volcanic activity at tectonic divergent boundaries, and major earthquake activity at both divergent and convergent boundaries.

Valid philosophy and lunatic religion are separated by thin boundaries. In your case above, the dead giveaway of your religion is the "will be" instead of the correct "would be."

@ Into the Night, you were spot on. It didn't take long.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2015 03:03
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



I found this about True polar wander:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wander
True polar wander represents the shift in the geographical poles relative to Earth's surface, after accounting for the motion of the tectonic plates. This motion is caused by the rearrangement of the mantle and the crust in order to align the maximum inertia with the current rotation axis [2](fig.1). This is similar to a spinning top; when its rotation is disturbed, it slowly recovers and it will realign its rotation axis to its position of maximum inertia. The difference is that unlike Earth, the spinning top's mass distribution is constant through its volume over time. Evidence for true polar wander has been observed from the study of large apparent polar wander datasets which, when corrected for the motion of the magnetic pole,[3] display this polar wander. Modern polar wander can be evaluated from precise measurement using stars or satellite measurements, however filtering to remove the wobble of the Earth is required.


I think it can happen if a volcano explodes or a super volcano is loading up.
It is all started by mass being moved.
So if ice melts and the melted water is moved we have a similar situation.
Mass is moved and we get a true polar wander.

That must be it..!?


It looks like it is happening today:

http://earthsky.org/earth/earth-is-undergoing-true-polar-wander-scientists-say
German and Norwegian scientists have incorporated hotspots in Earth's mantle into a computer model being used to study true polar wander. They say their work established a stable reference frame for this study that lets them conclude Earth is undergoing true polar wander today.


Earth IS UNDERGOING True Polar Wander
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJTsKkOlJQ


I don't see them mention melted ice but it must be working there too in an unknown growing scale.


I may still be concerned about different patterns creating unpredictable tensions in the shell of the earth.
It seems to me the pattern from the melted ice is unique and not just supporting other forces.





­­
17-11-2015 03:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
[quote]Jakob wrote:I found this about True polar wander:[quote]
Let me get this straight...you believe the ice in Greenland and Antarctica is locking the magnetic poles in place?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2015 04:36
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Jakob wrote:
­It looks like it is happening today:

http://earthsky.org/earth/earth-is-undergoing-true-polar-wander-scientists-say

­­


Yes, happening today.
Slowly.
Quoting from that earthsky article: What's more, for the past 40 million years, the Earth's solid outer layers have been slowly rotating at a rate of 0.2 degrees every million years, according to these scientists.

0.2 degrees every million years.

The subject of actual true polar wander is kind of interesting.
Maybe important for folks trying to refine paleomagnetic data, in that the magnetic pole seems to not stray real far from the geographic pole, even through magnetic reversals. Maybe important for people trying to reconstruct the exact configuration of continental masses through hundreds of millions of years of plate tectonic motion.

I don't see 0.2 degrees every million years of much importance to the subject of current climate change. Speed it up 100 times, still doesn't seem too important.

If you're really concerned, immerse yourself in the subject, get to where you can treat the subject quantitatively and come up with some alarming numbers. None of the numbers I've seen so far are alarming.
17-11-2015 05:09
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
trafn wrote:
@still learning - the melting of ice off of Antarctica in such a short period of time will be a new phenomena, with a proportionately rapid rebound (unlike those in the past record) leading to significant increase of volcanic activity at tectonic divergent boundaries, and major earthquake activity at both divergent and convergent boundaries. So there's not much in the geological record to compare it to.


If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects. Your arguments, what I've seen of them aren't convincing to me. Even if the rate of meltoff is extraordinarily fast, still doesn't necessarily follow that volcanic activity would be greatly affected. Volcanic activity is mostly a matter of heatflow. Don't see how meltoff would change that a lot. Earthquakes from crustal isotatic rebound, sure. Not particularly larhe though. Biggest earthquakes associated with plate subduction. Don't think Antarctic has subduction particularly close. Anyway, not too much in Antarctica to be destroyed by earthquakes.
17-11-2015 05:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
still learning wrote:If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects.

There is no such thing as "mainstream" science. Science is not a religion. There are no sides in science. There is no room in science for subjective opinions.

It does not matter if his opinion is shared by a majority of the planet or if he is the only one with that view, science either corroborates his assertion or it does not.

Can you point to any science that falsifies his assertions? Can he point to any science that corroborates his assertions? If the answer is "no" to both then he is no less incorrect just because you are the first to call "consensus! ."

still learning wrote: Even if the rate of meltoff is extraordinarily fast, still doesn't necessarily follow that volcanic activity would be greatly affected. Volcanic activity is mostly a matter of heatflow. Don't see how meltoff would change that a lot. Earthquakes from crustal isotatic rebound, sure. Not particularly larhe though. Biggest earthquakes associated with plate subduction. Don't think Antarctic has subduction particularly close. Anyway, not too much in Antarctica to be destroyed by earthquakes.


Everything you said here is correct, but you are running dangerously close to getting disinvited from trafn's forum and being declared a "denialist troll." It's too late for me but you can save yourself.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2015 11:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
still learning wrote:
trafn wrote:
@still learning - the melting of ice off of Antarctica in such a short period of time will be a new phenomena, with a proportionately rapid rebound (unlike those in the past record) leading to significant increase of volcanic activity at tectonic divergent boundaries, and major earthquake activity at both divergent and convergent boundaries. So there's not much in the geological record to compare it to.


If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects. Your arguments, what I've seen of them aren't convincing to me. Even if the rate of meltoff is extraordinarily fast, still doesn't necessarily follow that volcanic activity would be greatly affected. Volcanic activity is mostly a matter of heatflow. Don't see how meltoff would change that a lot. Earthquakes from crustal isotatic rebound, sure. Not particularly larhe though. Biggest earthquakes associated with plate subduction. Don't think Antarctic has subduction particularly close. Anyway, not too much in Antarctica to be destroyed by earthquakes.


Yes, well said.
17-11-2015 11:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
IBdaMann wrote:
Can you point to any science that falsifies his assertions? Can he point to any science that corroborates his assertions? If the answer is "no" to both then he is no less incorrect just because you are the first to call "consensus! ".


Yes. He can but you would have to be able to take on board energy budgets without having a religious opposition to them.
17-11-2015 12:46
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




@still learning


I don't see 0.2 degrees every million years of much importance to the subject of current climate change. Speed it up 100 times, still doesn't seem too important.


How about 1 degree in 500 years..?
That is very fast compared.

1 degree I got from you.
The 500 years we can never be sure about. ( As I remember it the video used 2-300 years as an example. )
The wobble added is also unknown.



It is not my field and I am not in the mood to run an alarm campain about it but I still think it can be enough to be very important.

In this case I don't think it is so easy to say if the mass is insignificant or not.
In my opinion just comparing size of masses and bring that to a conclusion will only make us look like incompetent idiots.
For instance what is the mass of a bullet compared to a body. Insignificant..??
And what is the mass of a balancing weight on a wheel compared to the mass of the wheel..?
What is the difference in ballast weight on a safe ship compared to one that sinks because of too little or too much ballast somewhere..?
And what is the weight of the house compared to the dancers that made the dance-floor crash (if just one dancer had stayed of the floor it would not have happened )..?

and so on....



Just the fact that Greenland is uplifted 3 centimeters per year ( up to 1 kilometer ) seems like a proof that we are messing around with the inside forces of the earth and I do not have the skill to say that it can not trigger something very ugly.
What the water can trigger other places with its mass we may never be able to find out. If it for instance makes a tsunami much worse nobody will ever be able to proof it.
Science can not give us all answers yet and I guess this is and will be a guessing zone for still a long time to come..?



­

­­
17-11-2015 13:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Tim the plumber wrote: ]Yes. He can but you would have to be able to take on board energy budgets without having a religious opposition to them. [/color]


1. Do you speak for Jakob? Should I be asking you when I want Jakob's position?

2. What is an "energy budget"? I have no religion so I have no religious opposition to anything, and I don't know what an "energy budget" is so I don't have any other sort of opposition at present.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2015 13:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Jakob wrote:Just the fact that Greenland is uplifted 3 centimeters per year ( up to 1 kilometer ) seems like a proof that we are messing around with the inside forces of the earth and I do not have the skill to say that it can not trigger something very ugly

Let me get this straight...humanity is somehow able to "mess with" the earth's geological activity?

You don't find that notion rather absurd?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2015 17:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: ]Yes. He can but you would have to be able to take on board energy budgets without having a religious opposition to them. [/color]


1. Do you speak for Jakob? Should I be asking you when I want Jakob's position?

2. What is an "energy budget"? I have no religion so I have no religious opposition to anything, and I don't know what an "energy budget" is so I don't have any other sort of opposition at present.


.


When you post on a public forum expect others to comment. It's implicit.

The diagram of how the sun's energy does or does not warm the earth shows an imbalance of energy. The residual is the amount which is absorbed by the earth and this raises temperatures.

You have refused to consider it at all. I see that as a religious stance in the same way as I see you refusal to consider that the word climate has meaning. It's silly.
17-11-2015 18:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@still learning - you wrote If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects.

Yes, my experience with M2C2 (man-made climate change) literature is that most predictions are based upon the concept "if things continue at their current rate," or linear acceleration. In contrast, I believe that in the next 2 decades we will see exponential acceleration due to factors which are only beginning to come into play. For example, the nithane effect where the main GHG driver behind M2C2 gets transferred from CO2 to methane, then to nitrous oxide, and finally to water.

Under an exponential scenario, the isostatic rebound will be much greater than predicted, with Antarctica rising by many, many meters before the end of this century. As the nithane effect is unknown in the geologic record, so too is this type of tectonic shift. Thus, there will be an unprecedented rise in both earthquake activity and intensity at convergent and divergent tectonic boundaries, as well as unprecedented volcanic activity and intensity at divergent boundaries.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
17-11-2015 19:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
trafn wrote:
@still learning - you wrote If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects.

Yes, my experience with M2C2 (man-made climate change) literature is that most predictions are based upon the concept "if things continue at their current rate," or linear acceleration. In contrast, I believe that in the next 2 decades we will see exponential acceleration due to factors which are only beginning to come into play. For example, the nithane effect where the main GHG driver behind M2C2 gets transferred from CO2 to methane, then to nitrous oxide, and finally to water.

Under an exponential scenario, the isostatic rebound will be much greater than predicted, with Antarctica rising by many, many meters before the end of this century. As the nithane effect is unknown in the geologic record, so too is this type of tectonic shift. Thus, there will be an unprecedented rise in both earthquake activity and intensity at convergent and divergent tectonic boundaries, as well as unprecedented volcanic activity and intensity at divergent boundaries.


It is exactly this sort of unscientific dommsday scenario alarmism which is responsible for the vast amount of harm done by eco-idiocy.

The world has been lots warmer than now many times in the past without water vapor having this runaway effect you desire. So the water doom scenario is out.

There will not be any sudden release of methane due to the position of the methane sinks. They are either perma frost of the deep ocean floors, wel the sides of the continental shelves. Both of which would see the fringes being released and the rest happening if/as the temperature rose suficently. The deep ocean is never going to do this at all. The fringes of the permafgrost lands can but as the region gets colder this gets more difficult.

Please stop spouting mad drivel.
17-11-2015 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
trafn wrote:
@still learning - you wrote If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects.

Yes, my experience with M2C2 (man-made climate change) literature is that most predictions are based upon the concept "if things continue at their current rate," or linear acceleration. In contrast, I believe that in the next 2 decades we will see exponential acceleration due to factors which are only beginning to come into play. For example, the nithane effect where the main GHG driver behind M2C2 gets transferred from CO2 to methane, then to nitrous oxide, and finally to water.

Under an exponential scenario, the isostatic rebound will be much greater than predicted, with Antarctica rising by many, many meters before the end of this century. As the nithane effect is unknown in the geologic record, so too is this type of tectonic shift. Thus, there will be an unprecedented rise in both earthquake activity and intensity at convergent and divergent tectonic boundaries, as well as unprecedented volcanic activity and intensity at divergent boundaries.


And what would cause this transfer between GHG drivers? Is water somehow more prevalent than it was before? Is NOx not breaking down like it usually does? Are cows and swamps generating more methane than CO2?


The Parrot Killer
17-11-2015 21:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Tim the plumber wrote:
When you post on a public forum expect others to comment. It's implicit.

Sure, and when I direct a specific question at someone, I don't expect you to comment as though you are answering for said person. It's implicit.


Tim the plumber wrote: The diagram of how the sun's energy does or does not warm the earth shows an imbalance of energy. The residual is the amount which is absorbed by the earth and this raises temperatures.

The question before you is "What is an energy budget?" You used the term as though it is a real thing of pertinence to the discussion. I have no idea what one of those things is. Would you mind terribly explaining?

Tim the plumber wrote: You have refused to consider it at all.

What is "it" and what part of it did I not consider? What part did I consider, apparently without even realizing that I was considering it?

Tim the plumber wrote: I see that as a religious stance in the same way as I see you refusal to consider that the word climate has meaning. It's silly.

Now your dishonesty must be intentional.

You are well aware that I fully acknowledge that the word "climate" is in the dictionary and that it has various meanings listed. I have stated multiple times that the word "climate" means to me "the temperature in my car" which I adjust with my "climate control" setting.

You are a liar.

I have also stated that the word "climate" is not defined in the body of science. This pisses you off because it flies in the face of your religious faith wich tells you that your faith is science (and you are left confused). That would normally not be a big deal but you're a "shoot the messenger" type of guy who turns bloody spiteful if someone points out that your beliefs are not based on any science. Oh well, it sucks to be you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2015 21:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
trafn wrote: Under an exponential scenario, the isostatic rebound will be much greater than predicted, with Antarctica rising by many, many meters before the end of this century.

Why will it be greater than you predicted? As far as I am aware, no one else has ever made a valid prediction, i.e. what, when and how much.

When will all the earth's ice be gone, btw?

How many meters is "many, many" anyway?

trafn wrote: As the nithane effect is unknown in the geologic record, so too is this type of tectonic shift. Thus, there will be an unprecedented rise in both earthquake activity and intensity at convergent and divergent tectonic boundaries, as well as unprecedented volcanic activity and intensity at divergent boundaries.


All this starts when?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-11-2015 01:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
IBdaMann wrote:
I have also stated that the word "climate" is not defined in the body of science.


It's not even defined well in the dictionary. All of the dictionary entries I can find tend to resort to unspecified periods simply known as 'a long time'.


The Parrot Killer
18-11-2015 02:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I have also stated that the word "climate" is not defined in the body of science.


It's not even defined well in the dictionary. All of the dictionary entries I can find tend to resort to unspecified periods simply known as 'a long time'.

I could handle the unspecified time interval if it were clear what this "climate" thing is that is changing over time. Velocity is the change of position over time. Over what time interval you might ask? Well, it's user defined. You can even refer to velocity at a point in time (zero time interval). But I understand the concept of "position" that is changing, i.e. set of coordinate points in 3-space.

No one wants to create a well-defined, verifiable "climate" because the moment they do, it instantly loses its magical superpowers many hold so dear. Warmazombies and climate lemmings cannot permit any falsifiability when it comes to "climate."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-11-2015 03:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I have also stated that the word "climate" is not defined in the body of science.


It's not even defined well in the dictionary. All of the dictionary entries I can find tend to resort to unspecified periods simply known as 'a long time'.

I could handle the unspecified time interval if it were clear what this "climate" thing is that is changing over time. Velocity is the change of position over time. Over what time interval you might ask? Well, it's user defined. You can even refer to velocity at a point in time (zero time interval). But I understand the concept of "position" that is changing, i.e. set of coordinate points in 3-space.

No one wants to create a well-defined, verifiable "climate" because the moment they do, it instantly loses its magical superpowers many hold so dear. Warmazombies and climate lemmings cannot permit any falsifiability when it comes to "climate."


.


Taking the differential of 'climate' to produce 'climate' would be circular, hence your difficulty in doing so.

Velocity is the differential of changing Position, but Climate can't be the differential of changing Climate.

So we are left with an unspecified 'long time'.


The Parrot Killer
18-11-2015 05:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Into the Night wrote:
Taking the differential of 'climate' to produce 'climate' would be circular, hence your difficulty in doing so.

Not quite. As I was explaining to Totototo, the 1st derivative of "Climate" would be "Climate Change." The 1st Derivative of "Climate Change" (or the 2nd derivative of 'Climate") would tell us "Climate Acceleration" or the rate of change of "Climate Change."

So all we need is a "Climate" function, right? But alas, that would make it falsifiable. That cannot be permitted to happen. Hence there will never be a "Climate" function from which we will be able to derive "Climate Change" to see what it really is.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-11-2015 20:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Taking the differential of 'climate' to produce 'climate' would be circular, hence your difficulty in doing so.

Not quite. As I was explaining to Totototo, the 1st derivative of "Climate" would be "Climate Change." The 1st Derivative of "Climate Change" (or the 2nd derivative of 'Climate") would tell us "Climate Acceleration" or the rate of change of "Climate Change."

So all we need is a "Climate" function, right? But alas, that would make it falsifiable. That cannot be permitted to happen. Hence there will never be a "Climate" function from which we will be able to derive "Climate Change" to see what it really is.


.


Yes. That makes sense. I thought you were trying to define 'climate' by using a derivative of 'climate', since the word 'climate' itself is undefinable by anything more accurate than 'a long time'.

It's gonna be awfully hard to come with a function based on something like that.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-11-2015 20:43
19-11-2015 15:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Into the Night wrote:
It's gonna be awfully hard to come with a function based on something like that.

Another option would be to rigidly define "climate change", observe those changes, develop a falsifiable "climate change" model (function) over time and then take the first indefinite integral and voila! ..the "climate" function.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-11-2015 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It's gonna be awfully hard to come with a function based on something like that.

Another option would be to rigidly define "climate change", observe those changes, develop a falsifiable "climate change" model (function) over time and then take the first indefinite integral and voila! ..the "climate" function.


.


Unfortunately, trying to develop a climate function so you could differentiate a climate change function by integrating a climate change function back to climate change is just as circular. If you are going to somehow rigidly define climate change, wouldn't it be just as easy to define climate in the first place?


The Parrot Killer
19-11-2015 21:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Into the Night wrote: If you are going to somehow rigidly define climate change, wouldn't it be just as easy to define climate in the first place?


Yes, absolutely, were such a thing to exist. I couldn't agree more.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-06-2016 14:33
jackk
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
As we have seen that our environment is keeps on changing. No one can deny this. If there occurs environment changes, that result in increasing of problems in our surrounding. With a immense entry of natural disasters, warming and cooling periods, different kinds of weather patterns and much more, so people should to be aware of what kind of environmental problems our planet is facing.Environment destruction is often caused by humans is a global problem nowadays, and this is a becoming a big problem in today's world. By the year 2050, it is expected that the global human population is grow by 2 billion people, and thereby reaching a level of 9.6 billion people (Living Blue Planet 24). The various human effects on our Earth that can be observe in many different ways. A main of them is the temperature rise, and according to the study and report "The Changing Climate", the global warming that has been increasing on for the past 50 years is mainly because of human activities regularly.
There is different variety of life that exist on Earth, its biological diversity, is commonly term as biodiversity. The number of various kinds of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, there is a different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rain forests and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse Earth.


green house effect
06-06-2016 10:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
jackk wrote:
As we have seen that our environment is keeps on changing. No one can deny this.

Yes...we call it weather and seasons.
jackk wrote:
If there occurs environment changes, that result in increasing of problems in our surrounding.
Fix a nice glass of lemonade in the summer, shovel the walk in the winter. It's pretty simple.
jackk wrote:
With a immense entry of natural disasters,
There is has been no increase in natural disasters.
jackk wrote:
warming and cooling periods,
We call them seasons and the day night cycles.
jackk wrote:
different kinds of weather patterns
We call them seasons and day night cycles.
jackk wrote:
and much more,
What? Couldn't think of anything else?
jackk wrote:
so people should to be aware of what kind of environmental problems our planet is facing.
Considering your complete lack of any ability to give any details, I guess you're the last person to issue the warning.
jackk wrote:
Environment destruction is often caused by humans is a global problem nowadays,
We puny humans do not have that kind of power.
jackk wrote:
and this is a becoming a big problem in today's world.
What problem is that?
jackk wrote:
By the year 2050, it is expected that the global human population is grow by 2 billion people, and thereby reaching a level of 9.6 billion people (Living Blue Planet 24).
Speculation. It means nothing. As they say in the financial world, past performance does not guarantee future profits.
jackk wrote:
The various human effects on our Earth that can be observe in many different ways.
Yes. With aircraft and satellites, we can look at our own houses, cities, and towns. We can even see cars driving on the roads.
jackk wrote:
A main of them is the temperature rise,
I will leave the English lessons to IBDaMann. There is no instrumentation to measure the temperature of the world. You can't say if the temperature is rising, falling, or doing nothing remarkable.
jackk wrote:
and according to the study and report "The Changing Climate", the global warming that has been increasing on for the past 50 years is mainly because of human activities regularly.
If you are going to quote a false authority as gospel, than you are firmly in the hands of the Global Warming Religion.
jackk wrote:
There is different variety of life that exist on Earth, its biological diversity, is commonly term as biodiversity. The number of various kinds of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, there is a different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rain forests and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse Earth.

...and so?
jackk wrote:
...deleted link to propaganda about ozone layer...

Since you seem unaware of the chemistry of ozone, let me clue you in.

Ozone (O3) is a molecule that is easily made. Basically, all you do is take oxygen (O2) and shove energy into it. It doesn't matter what kind, heat, light, electricity, whatever. The natural ozone layer gains its energy primarily from UV light striking the upper atmospheric oxygen.

Ozone is an unstable molecule. Once the energy source is removed, ozone will decay back into oxygen over the space of a few hours. The biggest risk to ozone is ozone.

Each day, the sun builds up the ozone layer. Each night, the ozone layer decays away. If the night were to last more than 24 hours, the ozone would disappear completely. When the sun rises, the ozone layer is again rebuilt. Since ozone reflects HF radio waves, this is an easy pattern to monitor.

Holes occur at the poles during the winter of that pole. No sun, no ozone, no big deal. The size and shape of these holes varies somewhat depending on upper air winds.

Low level ozone can be produced in the heat of a piston engine such as a car. This ozone, if it comes in contact with unburned hydrocarbons, will produce smog. Modern cars reduce the ozone they produce using a system known as the exhaust gas recirculation system, or EGR (that little valve that needs replacing from time to time). This system reduces the burn temperature and reduces the unburned hydrocarbons by feeding the exhaust gases up into the induction system for a second chance at burning. The catalytic converter takes care of what's left.

Thus today, we have a LOT less smog.

Another source of ozone is the typical thunderstorm. It's that 'fresh rain smell' you get just before the rain hits. That is ozone dragged down in the storm's downdrafts at the leading edge of the storm.

Several types of air fresheners are ozone generators. So are the smoke eaters in bars and casinos.

Ozone is easy to make. It destroys itself. Things like loose chlorine atoms are extremely reactive. They never get up to the ozone layer to react with it. Things like CFC's are heavier than air, and do not react with ozone.

Hope this clears up a few misconceptions about ozone for you.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Planet earth is a spinning top:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast218-05-2019 15:06
UN climate chief warns of 'catastrophe' if planet continues on current path026-04-2019 15:34
If Democrats rule America then in 100 years America will be biggest CO2 emitter on the planet126-04-2019 00:41
Climate change should be top issue for voters in October, advocates say024-04-2019 03:05
Global Climate Strike: Meet the teenagers skipping school to fight for a greener planet913-04-2019 20:34
Articles
Barack Obama: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact