Planet earth is a spinning top

IBdaMann wrote:
*Ice***** - Cubic Km Ice **** - Total Kg Ice **** - % to Earth


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

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

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

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

Jakob wrote:
­It looks like it is happening today:

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

­­

trafn wrote:
@still learning - the melting of ice off of Antarctica in such a short period of time will be a new phenomena, with a proportionately rapid rebound (unlike those in the past record) leading to significant increase of volcanic activity at tectonic divergent boundaries, and major earthquake activity at both divergent and convergent boundaries. So there's not much in the geological record to compare it to.

still learning wrote:If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects.

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

still learning wrote:

trafn wrote:
@still learning - the melting of ice off of Antarctica in such a short period of time will be a new phenomena, with a proportionately rapid rebound (unlike those in the past record) leading to significant increase of volcanic activity at tectonic divergent boundaries, and major earthquake activity at both divergent and convergent boundaries. So there's not much in the geological record to compare it to.

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

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote: ]Yes. He can but you would have to be able to take on board energy budgets without having a religious opposition to them. [/color]

Jakob wrote:Just the fact that Greenland is uplifted 3 centimeters per year ( up to 1 kilometer ) seems like a proof that we are messing around with the inside forces of the earth and I do not have the skill to say that it can not trigger something very ugly

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote: ]Yes. He can but you would have to be able to take on board energy budgets without having a religious opposition to them. [/color]

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

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


.

trafn wrote:
@still learning - you wrote If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects.

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

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

trafn wrote:
@still learning - you wrote If I have it right (may well not), you've convinced yourself that the rate of melt will be much faster than anybody in mainstream science expects.

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

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

Tim the plumber wrote:
When you post on a public forum expect others to comment. It's implicit.

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

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

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

trafn wrote: Under an exponential scenario, the isostatic rebound will be much greater than predicted, with Antarctica rising by many, many meters before the end of this century.

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

IBdaMann wrote:
I have also stated that the word "climate" is not defined in the body of science.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I have also stated that the word "climate" is not defined in the body of science.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I have also stated that the word "climate" is not defined in the body of science.

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

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

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


.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

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


.

Into the Night wrote:
It's gonna be awfully hard to come with a function based on something like that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It's gonna be awfully hard to come with a function based on something like that.

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


.

Into the Night wrote: If you are going to somehow rigidly define climate change, wouldn't it be just as easy to define climate in the first place?

jackk wrote:
As we have seen that our environment is keeps on changing. No one can deny this.

jackk wrote:
If there occurs environment changes, that result in increasing of problems in our surrounding.

jackk wrote:
With a immense entry of natural disasters,

jackk wrote:
warming and cooling periods,

jackk wrote:
different kinds of weather patterns

jackk wrote:
and much more,

jackk wrote:
so people should to be aware of what kind of environmental problems our planet is facing.

jackk wrote:
Environment destruction is often caused by humans is a global problem nowadays,

jackk wrote:
and this is a becoming a big problem in today's world.

jackk wrote:
By the year 2050, it is expected that the global human population is grow by 2 billion people, and thereby reaching a level of 9.6 billion people (Living Blue Planet 24).

jackk wrote:
The various human effects on our Earth that can be observe in many different ways.

jackk wrote:
A main of them is the temperature rise,

jackk wrote:
and according to the study and report "The Changing Climate", the global warming that has been increasing on for the past 50 years is mainly because of human activities regularly.

jackk wrote:
There is different variety of life that exist on Earth, its biological diversity, is commonly term as biodiversity. The number of various kinds of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, the enormous diversity of genes in these species, there is a different ecosystems on the planet, such as deserts, rain forests and coral reefs are all part of a biologically diverse Earth.

jackk wrote:
...deleted link to propaganda about ozone layer...