Remember me
▼ Content

Ice Ages



Page 2 of 3<123>
16-10-2017 06:13
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


And the children on our planet think that it's time to run around whining and crying and stomping the feet and saying nasty things about those mean people who say they gotta stop living the high life and get in harmony with nature.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-10-2017 06:20
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.



~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-10-2017 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
16-10-2017 23:40
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


It's the climate oscillations that make me think that the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges have a significant impact.

@GasGuzzler,
If co2 levels are less than 10% higher than pre-industrial levels (between 280 - 310) ice ages have occurred every 40,000 years. A cooler planet (co2 levels below 280 ppm) has an ice age every 100,000 years.

And the debate might become even more interesting;
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages
17-10-2017 09:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
17-10-2017 17:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


We have clocks that would lose one nanosecond in a million years. That is so accurate that it cannot be called a standard because it is so much more accurate than the atomic clocks.

So we KNOW that the length of the day is increasing due to the gravity drag of the moon. We also know that the Moon is slowly increasing its distance from the Earth.

Fluctuations are not the same as increases in the average length of a day. A day is lengthening about 0.0017 seconds per century.

This all agrees with physics as well.

I suggest you return to your Canadian school system.
17-10-2017 20:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


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

Try again.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2017 22:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.

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.

Edited on 17-10-2017 22:05
17-10-2017 22:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
Attached image:

18-10-2017 00:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.

NASA isn't even a reliable source of data.

I only accept data if I know when and how is collected, the instrumentation used, who collected it and for what purpose, have the raw data available, and if a statistical summary is made, that the margin of error is also calculate and released with it, as well as the selection method used.

I have a very high standard for data before I just accept it. Lots of people throw around numbers. Most of them are random numbers.

The stuff from NASA is not data, it is speculation. It is a pointless one at that. The sheer amount of energy it would take to melt all the ice in Greenland is incredible. If the Sun were truly providing that much energy, the rest of Earth would already be a cinder.

Melting snow just soaks in to the land it's sitting on. Yes, even large amounts of snow that Greenland has. The rest just flows to the nearby sea. Greenland is surrounded by sea, you know.

Seawater moving around the Earth doesn't affect Earth's spin rate. Any water that moves is just displaced by other water.

As Wake quite properly pointed out, fluctuations are not a long term indication. The Earth's rate of spin is quite constant. We can accurately measure this. We measure it down to the millisecond using stars as our reference point. The current spin rate for Earth is 86400.2 seconds per year.

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.


We don't see it. If it occurred, we would be adjusting our clocks for it, just like we do with the Moon.


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2017 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.

No, it doesn't. It quotes some references, then inserts it's own opinions in its articles. Many other articles are badly written or contain information that is outright wrong.

Wikipedia is not a valid source. You are making an argument of false authority.
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?

No, it is YOU that is injecting meaning to the data that isn't there. Wikipedia has also done this.


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2017 00:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?


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.
18-10-2017 02:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
18-10-2017 02:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
18-10-2017 02:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-10-2017 02:33
18-10-2017 02:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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...

You know even less than Surface Detail does.

Take for example the glaciers that used to cover much of Washington, Idaho, and Montana.

Where do you think all that water went?

A lot just soaked into the soil. Much of that filled aquifers we later used.
A lot flowed to the Pacific Ocean, immediately west of the glacier. It was not nearer the equator or nearer the pole. The weight basically stayed at the same latitude.
Some just evaporated, later to fall as rain over the same regions.

The practical upshot affect to Earth's rotation? Meh.


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2017 03:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

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.
18-10-2017 04:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.

Ah.... you mean like ice melting off the top of Antarctic & Greenland Ice Sheets between 10,000 & 15,000(?) feet & flowing to the sea..... at sea level. Like a "spinning-on-its-leg" skater pulling its arms & other leg towards the rotational axis center , it speeds up. Yeah, the Earth would do the same thing with high ice turning to sea level water.
Edited on 18-10-2017 04:59
18-10-2017 05:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.

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


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-10-2017 05:04
18-10-2017 05:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.

Of course, fluctuations due to one mechanism can continue year to year, decade to decade, century to century, etc. "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" continues its fluctuations to be an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner AGW denier liar whiner, year to year, decade to decade.... hopefully NOT century to century.
Edited on 18-10-2017 05:59
18-10-2017 17:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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


Unfortunately, like all the warmies Surface Detail doesn't want to actually know anything, he wants to argue about it.
19-10-2017 13:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.
19-10-2017 18:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


Pack you bags Waheed because you're going elsewhere soon.
20-10-2017 01:09
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
Edited on 20-10-2017 01:11
20-10-2017 02:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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


The ozone layer is not being depleted. It does not absorb UV-A much at all. Neither does oxygen.

UV-A on the surface is reduced more by scattering than anything else.


The Parrot Killer
20-10-2017 04:41
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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!
Edited on 20-10-2017 04:52
20-10-2017 20:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?
21-10-2017 19:32
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
Edited on 21-10-2017 20:14
21-10-2017 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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?


The Parrot Killer
22-10-2017 17:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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!

.......... 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!
22-10-2017 20:33
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
22-10-2017 23:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


Why? Are you his kid?


The Parrot Killer
22-10-2017 23:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
23-10-2017 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


Heh. May be he is not allowed to be corrected!


The Parrot Killer
23-10-2017 04:44
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
Edited on 23-10-2017 05:11
23-10-2017 08:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
I'll give you an example Wake. You say co2 doesn't cause global warming. At the same time you don't care that the IPCC states that record levels of co2 has almost stopped ozone depletion.
At the same time I have a serious medical issue that needs to be resolved so I can have a life. And that's what I should be focusing on right now.
Edited on 23-10-2017 08:49
23-10-2017 11:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

What a very confused post.

First, the Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with the rotation speed of the Earth. They are a consequence of changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and its axial inclination, not its rotation speed!

Second, you seem to be under the impression that only external torques (from the moon and, to a much lesser extent, other solar system bodies) can affect the rotation speed of the Earth. Wrong. The Earth's rotation speed is also affected by changes in its moment of inertia (due to melting ice, geostatic rebound, atmospheric changes, etc.) and core/mantle coupling. Measurements of the Earth's rotation speed show that it sometimes accelerates; external torques cannot do that.

Third, I am certainly not denying that, in the long term, the Earth's rotation speed is slowing due to tidal effects (mainly due to the moon), nor am I denying that the moon is gradually receding. I am simply pointing out that, in the short term, other effects can temporarily reverse the long-term slowing of the Earth's rotation. 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.

Fourth, the point of the post to which you replied was to rebut ITN's assertion that the moon alone affects the rotation speed of the Earth. This I did by pointing out that external torques (where from the moon or other bodies) cannot account for temporary increases in the rotation speed. This is the point that you have missed.
23-10-2017 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


The Parrot Killer
24-10-2017 00:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


Well, as it turns out people do care, whether you can detect that or not simply because they argue with you.
24-10-2017 09:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Yes, it is. And no, they don't.

The simple fact that leap seconds have been added less frequently over the past decade than in the 1970s tells you that the Earth must be spinning faster now than it was then.

This is, of course, just a temporary aberration due to changes in the Earth's moment of inertia. In the long term, the Earth will continue its gradual slowing trend as angular momentum is transferred to the moon through tidal effects. In the future, ever-increasing numbers of leap seconds will be needed, assuming we continue using the same time system.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Ice Ages:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
"GREENLANDS melting ice may affect everyone"922-10-2019 23:17
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
▲ 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