Remember me
▼ Content

Planet earth is a spinning top



Page 2 of 3<123>
15-11-2015 02:46
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



Jakob wrote:
One degree seems almost like nothing to me.
However if I calculate the way earth surface will have to travel I get 111 kilometers and that seems like a lot more.

40.075/360 = 111 kilometers

I suppose the core will not want to come along and that may change the movement somehow.


Maybe it will produce heat inside the earth and slow down the rotation speed one more time..?




­­
15-11-2015 04:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Jakob wrote:
­


IBdaMann wrote:
4. You mistakenly presume I am aware of what you mean by a "flipping machine."


No, I wrote:
flipper machine


I think it is the same as a pinball machine.
But I am not here to teach you English. You just have to do the best you can to hang on.


The flippers in a pinball machine don't flip. They flick. They are called 'flippers' because they 'flip' the ball back up field.

Also, flipping the Earth and flipping a ball on a pinball is a definitional fallacy, a form of false equivalence. The same word is being used with two meanings improperly.




­­
15-11-2015 04:44
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­


Into the Night wrote:
The flippers in a pinball machine don't flip. They flick. They are called 'flippers' because they 'flip' the ball back up field.


Is that so... alright...
So the earth can not make a one degree flip but only a one degree flick.

Im I just stubborn and irritating then if I say that real flippers usually flip less than 180 degrees..?




­
15-11-2015 04:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Jakob wrote:Im I just stubborn and irritating then if I say that real flippers usually flip less than 180 degrees..?­


Why are you struggling to change the subject from what you wrote about the earth "flipping" to what happens in pinball?

All I said was that your wording was confusing. You are certainly entitled to be as confusing as you wish. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


.


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
15-11-2015 05:08
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



Still I am sorry if my English makes too much confusion. I just also never thought Oldsirhippy meant 180 degrees. It was too wild for me to think.


My track is still here:
One degree seems almost like nothing to me.
However if I calculate the way earth surface will have to travel I get 111 kilometers and that seems like a lot more.

40.075/360 = 111 kilometers

I suppose the core will not want to come along and that may change the movement somehow.



Maybe it will produce heat inside the earth and slow down the rotation speed one more time..?




­
15-11-2015 09:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Jakob wrote:
­


Into the Night wrote:
The flippers in a pinball machine don't flip. They flick. They are called 'flippers' because they 'flip' the ball back up field.


Is that so... alright...
So the earth can not make a one degree flip but only a one degree flick.
­


You should've read the second part of that post (and quoted it). You are still making that mistake.
15-11-2015 11:34
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­


@Into the Night


I guess "tilt" is maybe a better word then.

I think "turn" is too easy to misunderstand because it already is turning.

And I also guess that you perfectly understand what I am saying and you have done it for a long time.
If you do not want the subject to be discussed and prefer an argument about English instead just say it so I can stay away until you are done.




­­
15-11-2015 12:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:@still learning


One degree seems almost like nothing to me.
However if I calculate the way earth surface will have to travel I get 111 kilometers and that seems like a lot more.

40.075/360 = 111 kilometers

I suppose the core will not want to come along and that may change the movement somehow.

­I think it must be a good thing if it happens very slowly and even much better if not at all.


It will not happen. It cannot happen. Antarctica is gaining ice. Greenland is losing ice at a very slow rate of 12.9 GT/year. Don't worry.
15-11-2015 14:33
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@Tim the plumber

I am sure it will happen. It is only a matter of time.
How soon must it happen if I in your opinion can be allowed to worry about it for the sake of mankind..?
You do know we talk about climate here and the weather is another sub-forum..?




­­
­
15-11-2015 15:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:
@Tim the plumber

I am sure it will happen. It is only a matter of time.
How soon must it happen if I in your opinion can be allowed to worry about it for the sake of mankind..?
You do know we talk about climate here and the weather is another sub-forum.


1, What are you sure is going to happen?

2, Why are you so sure?

3, Obviously the present ice age will one day come to an end. This will happen when coninental drift moves Antarctica away from the pole and opens up the Arctic ocean. Personally I don't think us humans should concearn ourselves with that.
15-11-2015 15:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Jakob wrote:You do know we talk about climate here and the weather is another sub-forum..? ­

"Climate" is weather in unfalsifiable verbiage.

This forum could have been named "Unfalsifiable Weather-Debate".


.


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
15-11-2015 16:23
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
This forum could be named Sky Dragon Slayer mass debate.


15-11-2015 16:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Ceist wrote: This forum could be named Sky Dragon Slayer mass debate.

You should ask branner to make just such a subforum. I'll gladly participate.


.


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
15-11-2015 18:56
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



I think all answers since my last post is in the wrong subforum.

They would fit better here in a new threads with new names:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/other-f21.php
or maybe here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/fun-f20.php




@Tim the plumber


The sun will grow and for all I know the seas will be boiling at the latest in maybe 200.000.000 years.

And if that is too slow for you I can just change the scenario.
If for instance an asteroide or a nuclear bomb of the right size fell down in the center of Greenland and blew off and melted most of the ice in a day or two.

I don't want to do that. I just want you to understand for good that it is okay to worry about climate in this forum about climate. And also as it is done here to focus on a detail without having to start all over with Adam and Eve to motivate the questions.


I am still not sure about what will happen and if nothing else it stimulates my curiosity and bugs me a little in a good way that it is so hard to get the right sense of it.
I hope you can forgive I am working on it.




­If earth will not swing something like a pendulum I think there must be heat generated and the energy for that heat I can only see come from kinetic rotation energy and therefore the earth must slow down once more..?
­


­

­
15-11-2015 20:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:@Tim the plumber


The sun will grow and for all I know the seas will be boiling at the latest in maybe 200.000.000 years.

And if that is too slow for you I can just change the scenario.
If for instance an asteroide or a nuclear bomb of the right size fell down in the center of Greenland and blew off and melted most of the ice in a day or two.

I don't want to do that. I just want you to understand for good that it is okay to worry about climate in this forum about climate. And also as it is done here to focus on a detail without having to start all over with Adam and Eve to motivate the questions.


I am still not sure about what will happen and if nothing else it stimulates my curiosity and bugs me a little in a good way that it is so hard to get the right sense of it.
I hope you can forgive I am working on it.

­If earth will not swing something like a pendulum I think there must be heat generated and the energy for that heat I can only see come from kinetic rotation energy and therefore the earth must slow down once more..?­


I understand you wish to fantasize about climate. I suggest you find a nice quiet corner with Tafn maybe and do that.

This forum is about debating climate stuff.

This is a very serrious political and scientific area. It is important. Millions of people die each year due to the actions associated with the green agenda. Perhaps that could be worth the sacrifice. I don't see it but it is very important that the world does the right thing.

Your idle musings need to be shown to be wrong because real world effects have come out of such things. This whole global warming thing started out as a scientist having a bit of an idle muse and the there sprang up a whole industry.

Greenland could all melt. The only at all likely way that could happen is for a massive volcanic eruption to happen in the middle of it. There is no sign of such a massive thing being there but we only found out that Yellow Stone was such a volcanoe recently.
15-11-2015 20:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Tim the plumber wrote:This is a very serrious political and scientific area.

Apparently not. It should be a serious matter if people are dying, but you apparently won't abandon your religion for even a second to discuss any sort of actual science pertaining to the issue at hand.

Just as it is with any other climate lemming, you use the seriousness of a particular pet issue, exaggerated or not, to conflate with scientific legitimacy, and just like any fanatical religionist, you are ready to shoot any messenger who points this out.

Congratulations, you have just rendered the cause of millions of people dying from food being used as fuel as nothing more than a personal ploy on your part to make your religious beliefs appear more important and substantiated than they really are.

Your underlying faith in the tenets of Global Warming and "greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gases" are just as WACKY and baseless as trafn's fantasies. You have no science but you apparently need to play pretend scientist more than you need to actually support any of your feigned causes.

Long live your religion.


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
15-11-2015 21:45
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­
­


Tim the plumber wrote:
I understand you wish to fantasize about climate. I suggest you find a nice quiet corner with Tafn maybe and do that.

This forum is about debating climate stuff.

This is a very serrious political and scientific area.



Nope. It is climate stuff but this is the area for "Climate Science"

Policy you find under "Action"

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/




­
15-11-2015 23:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Jakob wrote:Nope. It is climate stuff but this is the area for "Climate Science"­

So what "climate" science do you claim to have?

(imagine me going to Vegas and betting heavily on "none")


.


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
16-11-2015 00:01
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­­­



IBdaMann wrote:
So what "climate" science do you claim to have?



Not so much but at least I am looking for it.

This far "still learning" has done very well in my opinion and I hope he is still here.
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/planet-earth-is-a-spinning-top-d11-e797.php#post_4746
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/planet-earth-is-a-spinning-top-d11-e797.php#post_4837
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/planet-earth-is-a-spinning-top-d11-e797.php#post_4873
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/planet-earth-is-a-spinning-top-d11-e797.php#post_5029
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/planet-earth-is-a-spinning-top-d11-e797.php#post_5145

Also "Surface Detail" has been annoying in a good way with scientific glasses I think.
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/planet-earth-is-a-spinning-top-d11-e797.php#post_5116


It is good it is not all just political writers posting in the wrong sub-forum.




­
­
­
16-11-2015 00:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
I understand you wish to fantasize about climate. I suggest you find a nice quiet corner with Tafn maybe and do that.

This forum is about debating climate stuff.

This is a very serrious political and scientific area.



Nope. It is climate stuff but this is the area for "Climate Science"

Policy you find under "Action"

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/


The subject is serious.
16-11-2015 02:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Jakob wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: So what "climate" science do you claim to have?


Not so much but at least I am looking for it.


Do you have any idea what "climate" is? Do you believe it is defined in science?


.


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
16-11-2015 03:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Jakob wrote:
­


@Into the Night


I guess "tilt" is maybe a better word then.

I think "turn" is too easy to misunderstand because it already is turning.

And I also guess that you perfectly understand what I am saying and you have done it for a long time.
If you do not want the subject to be discussed and prefer an argument about English instead just say it so I can stay away until you are done.




­­


I think the basic problem, outside of analogies to the word 'flip', is the misunderstanding of the conservation of angular momentum coupled with the misunderstanding of fluid dynamics.

I think we had better start with what happens to the mass of water if the ice caps melt (assuming a way was found to inject that much energy into the system). There are two cases here, Antarctica which is mostly land, and the Arctic, which is mostly sea.
16-11-2015 03:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote:Nope. It is climate stuff but this is the area for "Climate Science"­

So what "climate" science do you claim to have?

(imagine me going to Vegas and betting heavily on "none")


.


The closest bet they have for that is the poker player calling out the bluff.
16-11-2015 11:45
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



If it is not possible to analyze a climate theory because some people try to suppress it because they don't want anybody in policy to find out what happens I think we have a serious problem. Not just in this debate but in the motives for participating in the scientific category.
I also think it is a very foolish approach and if they have any climate skills it will have exactly the opposite effect.
You will never stop me from worrying about this problem because you tell me to and push the debate of track.
If good scientists are worried I think I am allowed to be it too.




­
16-11-2015 12:00
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@still learning


I have been looking at the links you gave me but my English and math is not good enough to evaluate it.
However I get the sense some of it has been calculated with wrong preconditions and I hope it is okay that I ask you if you see it the same way.




Looks like a U of Wisconsin geology guy calculated what the change would be if all the polar ice melted, came out to making the day about 2/3 of a second longer.

See https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/IceCaps.HTM


Do you see they calculate with earth being solid and with no liquid inside it..?
Do you see they calculate with the ice melt-water being distributed almost equally..?





I found an (to me) informative review article at: http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Evans/16_03c-TPW.pdf
Need to be OK with some technical geologic terms to read the article though.
Is more than a decade old though. Maybe some of the speculative stuff reviewed in the article has been sorted out by now.

So, polar wander, sure, centimeters a year. Over the course of geologic time those centimeters add up. In at least one reconstruction (not accepted by many), a wander of almost 90 degrees over the the course of sever dozen million years.


There is a lot in that link I don't understand but I have to try and ask you this:
Is that ( the 90 degree tilt ) mainly happening from forces inside earth or from forces coming from the outside..?



The Earth's axis also changes direction over time as well as wobbles a little. Read up on Milankovich cycles.


You are a hard teacher but you may have a point.
It will still be more easy though just to ask you if it is for sure that ice melting after a normal ice age is happening in the same order and at least as fast as AGW can do it.
It has to be comparable to have a value in the analysis.




­
­­
16-11-2015 12:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:
If it is not possible to analyze a climate theory because some people try to suppress it because they don't want anybody in policy to find out what happens I think we have a serious problem. Not just in this debate but in the motives for participating in the scientific category.
I also think it is a very foolish approach and if they have any climate skills it will have exactly the opposite effect.
You will never stop me from worrying about this problem because you tell me to and push the debate of track.
If good scientists are worried I think I am allowed to be it too.
­


I agree that there is a lot of hype coming out.

I fully agree that there is surpression of debate. I would like to see a much better and more open debate.

Would you consider good scientist to include Nobel prize winners and physicists working at CERN?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

This is a list of papers which run counter to the "we are all doomed" naritive.

It's is right to be worried but you have to take the responsibility to actually understand what you are talking about.
16-11-2015 13:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Jakob wrote: If it is not possible to analyze a climate theory because some people try to suppress it

Suppress? How does someone suppress a hoax?

Jakob wrote: I think we have a serious problem.

Why do you think this? As long as you refuse to learn the science involved that explains the hoax to you, you are admitting that it isn't a serious problem but rather that it is a deeply religious ideology that you hold.


.


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
16-11-2015 13:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Jakob wrote: I have been looking at the links you gave me but my English and math is not good enough to evaluate it.

There is a lot in that link I don't understand ....­­

Thus you intentionally maintain your ignorance as your excuse for clinging to your religion.


.


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
16-11-2015 14:36
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Jakob wrote:
­
@still learning
Looks like a U of Wisconsin geology guy calculated what the change would be if all the polar ice melted, came out to making the day about 2/3 of a second longer.

See https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/IceCaps.HTM


Do you see they calculate with earth being solid and with no liquid inside it..?
Do you see they calculate with the ice melt-water being distributed almost equally..?


I'm pretty sure Stephen Dutch's website piece was just a sort of "back of the envelope" calculation, a first approximation. Not something intended to include all the details. My guess is that if you tried to factor in the effect of the liquid core of the Earth not being rigidly coupled to the mantle you'd initially find a slight increase in that 2/3 second value that'd creep back toward the 2/3 second value over time. Again, the equal distribution of meltwater is a first approximation. As Dutch wrote " Exact modeling of sea level change.....gets very hairy."

Something to consider is that not too many thousands of years ago there was a lot more ice than thee is now. Just based on Dutch's result, not checking anything, not remembering having read anything on the subject, I'd guess that Earth's day was a couple of seconds shorter during the height of recent iceage glaciation. Wonder what the "snowball earth" (google that, if you haven't heard of it) day was like?


I found an (to me) informative review article at: http://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Evans/16_03c-TPW.pdf


There is a lot in that link I don't understand but I have to try and ask you this:
Is that ( the 90 degree tilt ) mainly happening from forces inside earth or from forces coming from the outside..?

Assuming you're asking about the figure 14b4 in that rotational stability paper. No force from outside the Earth involved. As the Earth rotates, basically just centrifugal/centripetal force acting on that unbalanced mass trying to move it away from the rotational axis. Whole crust moves as a unit (not really, continental drift going on at the same time), coupled to the not quite rigid mantle. (Liquid core complications not included.)



The Earth's axis also changes direction over time as well as wobbles a little. Read up on Milankovich cycles.

It will still be more easy though just to ask you if it is for sure that ice melting after a normal ice age is happening in the same order and at least as fast as AGW can do it.
It has to be comparable to have a value in the analysis.
[/quote]

Iceage melting comparable? Yes and no, I think. Past natural climate variations are thought have been more gradual that what might be in store for us in the coming decades, temperature variations anyway. I expect that, on average, past meltoffs were gradual. On average. There were violent meltoff floods. Try googling "channeled scablands." Large dammed up meltoff lake broke loose, altering the landscape of eastern Washington (the US state).
Regarding current meltoff, clearly some mountain glaciers are in trouble.
The East Antarctic icecap, the really big one, seems to be doing well. Other icecaps are questionable. Melting, but how much and how fast is a subject of active investigation. Arctic sea ice is, on average, decreasing while Antarctic sea ice may be increasing. Lots of unknowns.
­
16-11-2015 14:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Iceage melting comparable? Yes and no, I think. Past natural climate variations are thought have been more gradual that what might be in store for us in the coming decades, temperature variations anyway. I expect that, on average, past meltoffs were gradual. On average.


Nope. The ice we have at present is very thick, and very difficult to melt. That's why it's still around after lots of previous periods during this interglacial which have been warmer than now.

The Great ice sheets over the Northern Hemisphere were at low level in latitudes which could easily have lots of solar heat going into them as they have now.

The vast lakes which developed between the melting ice sheets and the terminal morain damns that the ice sheets had left at the point of their fuurthest extent were exalent absorbers of thermal energy from the sun and equally good at transfering it to the base of the ice sheet.

It is reconed that the flooding which happened when the water managed to get under the ice sheet of America and flow into the Arctic ocan caused the sea level rise which breached the Dardanelles between the med and the Black sea. Several feet of sea level rise in a week.

Edited on 16-11-2015 14:58
16-11-2015 15:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Tim the plumber wrote: I fully agree that there is surpression of debate. I would like to see a much better and more open debate.

Could you give an example of a topic that is suppressed?

I don't see suppression. I see cowardly EVASION that is thereafter called "suppression" (so that evaders can blame others for their intellectual cowardice).

Let's find something that is genuinely suppressed, start a thread on it, and create open debate on the topic that no one can suppress.


.


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
16-11-2015 15:27
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




@Tim the plumber


Would you consider good scientist to include Nobel prize winners and physicists working at CERN?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html



Yes I will be interested if he has some wise calculations about the earth tilting when the ice melts.

Maybe you can quote a little to make it clear he knows something about the threads subject..?




This is a list of papers which run counter to the "we are all doomed" naritive.


This is not about being doomed. It is just about trying to figure out what can happen.



It's is right to be worried but you have to take the responsibility to actually understand what you are talking about.


Jep. If i claim something wrong to be very true it will hurt my right to be taken seriously in the future.
But if a politician finds his truth in unverified posts in a forum I sincerely think it is his problem.





@IBdaMann


I don't think it is religious to look for good science in spite of not being a scientist yourself. Nor to be worried about the future of mankind if you discover just a little corner of the science and find it hard to understand the rest.





@still learning


Thank you very much for your answer.



"gets very hairy" .... " Lots of unknowns"

Jep, I get that now and I have to think more about it.
It is easy for me to ask a lot of questions but I think I better chose them with a little care because the answers can be very hard to find.
I still think it seems too superficial just to say there is no problem because the ice has melted before.





­
16-11-2015 17:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Jakob wrote: Yes I will be interested if he has some wise calculations about the earth tilting when the ice melts.

Good. A very worthy effort.

If you or someone else discovers calculations that don't lead to the conclusions you had hoped, will you claim to "not understand" the math?

Jakob wrote: Jep. If i claim something wrong to be very true it will hurt my right to be taken seriously in the future.

No, your strategy is plead ignorance from the beginning and just point to other people's opinions (who happen to agree with your predetermined political positions), who aren't present in the discussion to answer questions. You use your "ignorance" as armor to deflect science that runs counter to your faith. When someone explains how you are incorrect, you'll just say "Well, I don't know, I have to go with what this other person says."

Jakob wrote: I don't think it is religious to look for good science in spite of not being a scientist yourself.

You aren't looking for science. You are looking for people who agree with your predetermined opinion so you can say "See, this other person agrees with me therefore he must be correct...which means I must be correct." This is obvious because you refuse to learn the science that answers your questions.

You claim ignorance on the topic, but you inexplicably find fault with everything you are told that disagrees with you dogma of the earth flipping like a top(without any valid explanation as to why you won't accept what you are being told by others who know more than you). This is the behavior of a religious devotee.

Why don't you list off everything you have researched and believe? List the "facts and figures." Then you can let others review your assumptions and correct those that are erroneous. If you won't do that then you get no say as to the acceptability of what others tell you.

Jakob wrote: I still think it seems too superficial just to say there is no problem because the ice has melted before. ­

How is it you are suddenly expert enough to question the validity of certain conclusions based on real-world observations yet you don't know anything about the topic and cannot provide support for your own conclusions for public discussion?


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
16-11-2015 19:09
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@still learning


About the inside and outside forces I was thinking something like this:

The 90 degree tilt was made by thermal forces inside the earth pushing the shell.
That follows a pattern.
But the one degree we talk about by melting ice is more like mechanical outside forces on the shell forcing it to move.
And that follows another pattern that will disturb the first pattern and generate new tensions in the shell in a very unpredictable way.





­
16-11-2015 19:43
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Jakob & still learning - the mantle' mass, proportionately is rather insignificant compared to the overall mass of the core, so any mantle effects on the overall inertia of the planet (rotation, incline, etc.) will be relatively small. However, when a significant portion of the land based ice sheets melt (Greenland, Antarctica), there will be isostatic/glacial rebound which will cause their respective continents to shift upward. This upward movement, in turn, will drastically alter plate tectonic dynamics, leading to an upsurge in both the frequency and intensity of volcanic and earthquake activity .


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 16-11-2015 19:44
16-11-2015 19:59
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
trafn wrote:
@Jakob & still learning - the mantle' mass, proportionately is rather insignificant .... upsurge in both the frequency and intensity of volcanic and earthquake activity .


67% is insignificant?
See http://epsc.wustl.edu/courses/epsc210a/pdfs/JS_rocksandmins.pdf



Regarding increase in volcanic and earthquake activity, could you provide a reference? Keep in mind that isostatic rebound is slow. It's still going on in Europe and North America because if the last ice-age deglaciation. Earthquakes associated? Sure, but not frequent, not particularly large. Volcanic activity? I doubt it. Show me volcanism associated with our the last icer-age deglaciation.
16-11-2015 20:23
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Jakob wrote:
@still learning

About the inside and outside forces I was thinking something like this:

The 90 degree tilt was made by thermal forces inside the earth pushing the shell.
That follows a pattern.
But the one degree we talk about by melting ice is more like mechanical outside forces on the shell forcing it to move.
And that follows another pattern that will disturb the first pattern and generate new tensions in the shell in a very unpredictable way.
­


90 degree tilt? The close to 90 degree extreme shown in figure 14b4 of that rotational stability paper? The that's not something that's thought to have actually happened, it's just an exercise illustrating an extreme of might be theoretically possible. No thermal "forces" involved, just mass, inertia, angular momentum, friction.
Now mantle convection, a thermal effect, is the driving mechanism often invoked explain tectonic plate motions involved in continental drift and tectonic plate motions are a complicating factor in trying to figure out how much polar wander there actually has been in the past and how much there might be in the future.
16-11-2015 20:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
* ******* Mass (Kg) * * * Volume (M^3) *

Atmo * 8.50E+20 [ 0.01% ] 7.08E+20 [ 38.27% ]

Crust * 1.37E+23 [ 2.23% ] 5.05E+19 [ 2.73% ]

Mant * 4.28E+24 [ 69.74% ] 9.20E+20 [ 49.71% ]

Core * 1.72E+24 [ 28.02% ] 1.72E+20 [ 9.29% ]

Earth * 6.13E+24 [ 100.00% ] 1.85E+21 [ 100.00% ]
16-11-2015 21:03
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@still learning


Thanks again.


I have to read some more about polar wander to try to understand better what is driving it.

But in the other context I think trafn is right at least about more earthquakes.
Greenland is already rising 3 centimeters per year.




­
­
16-11-2015 21:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@still learning - my mistake, you're right. I was thinking about the crust, which is about 0.5% of the planet's mass, when I made those statements. Mantle changes would have significant impacts on momentum, inclination, etc.


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!
Page 2 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 fast422-05-2019 18:30
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