Planet earth is a spinning top

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.

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.




­­

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.

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

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..?

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.
­

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.

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.

Jakob wrote:You do know we talk about climate here and the weather is another sub-forum..? ­

Ceist wrote: This forum could be named Sky Dragon Slayer mass debate.

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..?­

Tim the plumber wrote:This is a very serrious political and scientific area.

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.

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

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

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/

Jakob wrote:

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

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

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.




­­

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")


.

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

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.

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

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.
­

Jakob wrote: If it is not possible to analyze a climate theory because some people try to suppress it

Jakob wrote: I think we have a serious problem.

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 ....­­

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

trafn wrote:
@Jakob & still learning - the mantle' mass, proportionately is rather insignificant .... upsurge in both the frequency and intensity of volcanic and earthquake activity .

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.
­