Remember me
▼ Content

Planet earth is a spinning top



Page 1 of 3123>
Planet earth is a spinning top05-11-2015 17:47
Oldsirhippy
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
We hear much of the temperature changes that will occur as global warming takes hold. However I have not seen any details of what may happen if the earth as a spinning top alters its weight distribution. The arctic is melting and the antarctic may be decreasing or increasing its volume of ice with water being re-distributed. With this water weight distribution altering has anyone calculated whether this would affect earth's finely balanced spin? Might the earth flip? if so what would be the consequences?
05-11-2015 22:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The earth cannot flip or do anything silly.

However, the change in mass distribution is a very interesting thing. Well spotted Old-sir-hippy.

As ice melts at the poles the water flows into the oceans and this moves mass from the poles to all over the earth. This makes the average distance from the axis of spin to the mass of the earth greater. If a skater in a spin pulls in her arms she speeds up, as she streatches out she slows the spin rate.

Any movement of ice from the poles to water everywhere else would slow the spin of the earth.

Not by anything us humans would notice but with the extremely fine precision of atomic clocks it would be very easy to measure.

In spite of the data saying that sea level has risen this has not happened.

The day length data is very accurate and would be able to measure changes of 1mm of general sea level.

The data taken directly from satlelites and tide guages is, in my view, not at all able to measure the sea's level to 1mm accuracy. I ask you to go to the sea side and measure the level of the sea to the mm. Any time, any where. I can't do it, the stuff keeps bouncing up and down all the time. How are you supposed to do that for the whole earth????? But day length does this for us. In fact it is directly effected by the total volume of ice at the poles and the total volume of water in the world's oceans. Exactly what you actuall wnt to measure.
06-11-2015 02:02
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Oldsirhippy wrote:
We hear much of the temperature changes that will occur as global warming takes hold. However I have not seen any details of what may happen if the earth as a spinning top alters its weight distribution. The arctic is melting and the antarctic may be decreasing or increasing its volume of ice with water being re-distributed. With this water weight distribution altering has anyone calculated whether this would affect earth's finely balanced spin? Might the earth flip? if so what would be the consequences?


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
06-11-2015 21:03
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



I think that is a great little question.



Let me try to give you these allegations to calculate and shoot at:


1: The earth will turn slower.

2: The earth will gain gravity but loose mass.

3: Sea level will be higher than else when you move away from equator.

4: People will age faster and die sooner than else mostly close to equator.


And besides that it will do a million things to the weather and food resources likely to make life harder for mankind.


Will the earth shrink..?
If yes some of the above vectors may turn 180 degrees and we get wilder earthquakes and Yellow Stone may be more likely to explode.


How bad is it..?
I don't know. It seems pretty marginal but most of it will be much worse over time because the moon is pulling seas (tidewater) and that takes energy and makes the earth turn slower. And that process will accelerate when all ice is melted. Maybe a huge problem we don't have time to worry very much about because we have more than enough to do with bringing our own pollution under control before it is too late.




­
Edited on 06-11-2015 21:34
07-11-2015 13:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:
­



I think that is a great little question.



Let me try to give you these allegations to calculate and shoot at:


1: The earth will turn slower.


Yes, but only by an amout that will take an atomic clock to measure.

2: The earth will gain gravity but loose mass.


What???? No.

3: Sea level will be higher than else when you move away from equator.


If the ice at the poles melted it would spread all over the earth's oceans. There would be no significant difference between the effect at the equator and all other coasts.

4: People will age faster and die sooner than else mostly close to equator.


What???? No. And not even gramatically coherent.

And besides that it will do a million things to the weather and food resources likely to make life harder for mankind.


Food is easier to grow in warmer places. It might mean some alterations in what is grow where but there will be loads more to eat if there is more CO2 more rainfall and slightly higher temperatures.


Will the earth shrink..?
If yes some of the above vectors may turn 180 degrees and we get wilder earthquakes and Yellow Stone may be more likely to explode.


This is a silly joke yes???

How bad is it..?
I don't know. It seems pretty marginal but most of it will be much worse over time because the moon is pulling seas (tidewater) and that takes energy and makes the earth turn slower.


Have you any clue at all about any of the things you are talking about? Do you understand that the present ice age we are in is exceptional. Normally the earth does not have ice at sea level anywhere even at the poles. It's managed for billions of years so far.

And that process will accelerate when all ice is melted. Maybe a huge problem we don't have time to worry very much about because we have more than enough to do with bringing our own pollution under control before it is too late.


Too late for what?

Any talk of there being too many people is more evil than talk of there being too many Jews. You will find no supporting science to justify this idea. I can, and have, cited plenty of information to refute this evil message you are pumping out.





­
07-11-2015 18:22
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@Tim the plumber


I wrote "pollution" and not "population".
Are you sure you are good enough a reader to correct my grammar..?


I know it will take some time before the earth is stopped by gravity from the moon and sun.
However it is not a thing you can cover with history and say it has happened many times before.




­
07-11-2015 21:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:
­



@Tim the plumber


I wrote "pollution" and not "population".
Are you sure you are good enough a reader to correct my grammar..?


I know it will take some time before the earth is stopped by gravity from the moon and sun.
However it is not a thing you can cover with history and say it has happened many times before.


My appologies for misreading your post. I must be hyper over it on this forum....

The "normal" situation of the earth is to not have any ice at sea level. If there is any it's an ice age.

The earth has been spinning for 4.5 billion years. True it has been slowing down and the moon has been getting further away but the rate that this happens is very slow. There will never be any significant change in day length from a human perspective. You will always need hyper accurate clocks to measure it.
08-11-2015 09:57
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@Tim the plumber


Never mind me. I think it is much worse for the juwes but that is another subject.


If all ice on earth is melted the sea level will have gone up by aprox. 50-70 meters.
Do you know how much of that will be melted ice and how much is sea expansion..?





­
08-11-2015 14:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
I think the 70m figure is just for all the ice in the world to melt.

It will not. Can not do so. Would take thousands of years to do so if the heat input to Antarctica was doubled....

Thermal expansion is another idea that the alarmist cause hooked onto when they found that ice melting would have little effect but that disappeared when mechanical engineers showed that it was not going to happen so they went back to the ice melting idea.
08-11-2015 15:30
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@Tim the plumber


Have you seen this video:

Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w

It is pretty complicated and the earth will flip too.
( Oldsirhippy's question about that was wiser than I had imagined.)


And if earth will not shrink it will at least change shape.
Don't you find it hard to believe that can happen without more earthquakes taking place..?




­
08-11-2015 22:00
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Jakob wrote:

­ and the earth will flip too.

( Oldsirhippy's question about that was wiser than I had imagined.)
And if earth will not shrink it will at least change shape.
­


Where did you get the notion that the Earth would "flip?"
Do you mean that the Earth would somehow reverse it's north-south orientation with respect to the Sun and stars? So that today's "north star" would be vertically overhead of the Antarctic continent instead of directly over the Arctic Ocean like now? Sounds crackpot. Way outside mainstream science. Really hard to imagine. What about conservation of angular momentum?

Now, the Earth's magnetic field has reversed, flipped, many times in the past so that the north magnetic pole and south magnetic poles have sort of traded places. Will probably happen in the future too. Magnetic poles though. Not the way the Earth's rotational axis is oriented. Affects compasses, affects the way remnant magnetization of some minerals is oriented (which is how we know of past "flipping"), probably affects some animal's migration patterns. Cause of the magnetic reversals probably has to do with changes in the earth's partly molten iron core. Probably. Don't think it's known for certain.

There have been clueless folks writing about the reversals who have left out the word "magnetic."


Shrink or change shape? Explain please?
Shrink overall? Don't see how. Some loss of dry land area due to sea level rise, however much it ends up being, sure. Change shape? Apart from normal ongoing geologic processes not connected to climate change? Well, as mentioned in the informative lecture you linked to, isostatic rebound of formerly ice depressed crust does occur. It's slow though. Supposedly still goung on, a little, in parts of North America and Europe because unloading from our last ice-age meltoff. Slow.
Edited on 08-11-2015 22:04
08-11-2015 22:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:@Tim the plumber
Have you seen this video:

Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w

It is pretty complicated and the earth will flip too.
( Oldsirhippy's question about that was wiser than I had imagined.)


And if earth will not shrink it will at least change shape.
Don't you find it hard to believe that can happen without more earthquakes taking place..?


I have not watched the half hour video. What does it have to say and how far in does it say it?

The earth will not flip. I cite the evidence that it has never done so in the past even when the currently impossible event of all the ice melting has happened. I also cite the evidence that there is no mechanism which would ever cause it to do so.

If the ice was magically melted ther ewould be some earth quakes as the land under 3km of ice rose up a bit. This would mostly be localised to the area where the ice had melted.

I'm sure there probably would be some other earth quakes about the place as well.

All a bit of a red herring though. The ice is not going to melt.
09-11-2015 13:48
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




About earth flipping.


I understand it this way:

The ice mass on the north has been build up over many many years and it was done by the weather not symmetrically to the rotation axis.
And that mass movement did very slowly make the earth flip.



If we now take away the ice it will just flip back.



That I can imagine and maybe you can too..?



And if you are with me so far let us have a little bizarre fun about what if it is done very fast.
Will the earth become unstable for generations because of that..?
Try and watch just a few minutes of this video with rotating wheels to get a sense of the effect on the rotating earth I am thinking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzB6KSlD6ec





­
09-11-2015 14:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
still learning wrote:
Oldsirhippy wrote:
We hear much of the temperature changes that will occur as global warming takes hold. However I have not seen any details of what may happen if the earth as a spinning top alters its weight distribution. The arctic is melting and the antarctic may be decreasing or increasing its volume of ice with water being re-distributed. With this water weight distribution altering has anyone calculated whether this would affect earth's finely balanced spin? Might the earth flip? if so what would be the consequences?


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

That's a cool link, thanks. Looks like he debunks pseudoscience.

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm


09-11-2015 19:57
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Jakob wrote:
­About earth flipping.
I understand it this way:
The ice mass on the north has been build up over many many years and it was done by the weather not symmetrically to the rotation axis.
And that mass movement did very slowly make the earth flip.

­


Looks like a language issue, partly anyway.
Most folks (native English speakers anyway) use the word "flip" to describe a sudden movement. Often meaning a sudden 180 degree (or more) rotation.

You might want to read up on "polar wander" or "true polar wander."

Quoting from an article that I'll provide a url for: "TPW is measurable today at a rate of about 10 cm/year, resulting largely from the effects of Holocene deglaciation" (The Holocene includes the last 11,000 years, roughly)

So any near-future polar wander because of ice melting will be on roughly the same scale as other holocene wander. Way more ice melted off during the earlier holocene than is being considered to be lilely in the near future. 35 meters of sealevel rise in the early holocene.

Apparently most of true polar wander has been because of plate tectonic motions moving continental crust around, shifting the balance around some. At a rate of centimeters a year.

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.
09-11-2015 20:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jakob wrote:About earth flipping.

I understand it this way:

The ice mass on the north has been build up over many many years and it was done by the weather not symmetrically to the rotation axis.
And that mass movement did very slowly make the earth flip.


If we now take away the ice it will just flip back.

That I can imagine and maybe you can too..?

And if you are with me so far let us have a little bizarre fun about what if it is done very fast.
Will the earth become unstable for generations because of that..?
Try and watch just a few minutes of this video with rotating wheels to get a sense of the effect on the rotating earth I am thinking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzB6KSlD6ec


The mass of ice, although a lot in our terms, is tiny when comapred to the mass of the rest of the earth.

It will never melt quickly simply because it can't. There is just ne mechanism which can ever get lots of heat energy into large bodies of ice at high altitude. Well except volcaneos from below.

This is the standard "we are all doomed" drivel.


­
Edited on 09-11-2015 20:02
09-11-2015 21:27
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



Now the thread has been moved from Off Topic to Climate Science I think I better try if I can lower my low level English guessing profile a little.

But 2,8 * 10^6 km3 ice seems like a lot of mass to me.

Scientists find that Greenland will grow about 1 kilometer in height when the weight of the ice has melted.


Also it is wrong to think the water from melted ice will be distributed equally on earth sea surface.
When the ice melts its gravity melts along with it and that will allow a lot of seawater gathered around Greenland to run away to the rest of the world.
The phenomenon means different scenarios depending what ice on earth is melting:

­
Attached image:

09-11-2015 21:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Jakob wrote:

But 2,8 * 10^6 km3 ice seems like a lot of mass to me.

­

The Earth's mass is 5.972 * 10^24 kg
That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg

As a percentage of the mass of the Earth, it is insignificant.
Edited on 09-11-2015 21:56
09-11-2015 22:20
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.
09-11-2015 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
still learning wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.


?? 1 cubic meter of ice weighs 919 kg. What's the problem?
12-11-2015 15:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.


?? 1 cubic meter of ice weighs 919 kg. What's the problem?

They're cubic kilometers, not cubic meters.
12-11-2015 20:50
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Jakob wrote:
­Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w
It is pretty complicated and the earth will flip too.
­


Found a journal article titled "The rotational stability of an ice-age earth" authored in part by the guy that did the video you linked to, Jerry Mitrovica. Not for everybody to read, but I think most folks can get that there is no "flipping." Not in the video, not in the journal article. Polar wander, maybe a fair amount over many thousands of years, but no sudden changes.
See: http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/2/491.full
12-11-2015 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.


?? 1 cubic meter of ice weighs 919 kg. What's the problem?

They're cubic kilometers, not cubic meters.

2.573 * 10^18 kg. then. Still statistically insignificant.
Edited on 12-11-2015 21:18
13-11-2015 03:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.


?? 1 cubic meter of ice weighs 919 kg. What's the problem?

They're cubic kilometers, not cubic meters.

2.573 * 10^18 kg. then. Still statistically insignificant.

You're probably right, but how can you be sure? After all, a tiny weight on the wheel of your car can make a big difference to its balance. How can you show statistical insignificance?
13-11-2015 04:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.


?? 1 cubic meter of ice weighs 919 kg. What's the problem?

They're cubic kilometers, not cubic meters.

2.573 * 10^18 kg. then. Still statistically insignificant.

You're probably right, but how can you be sure? After all, a tiny weight on the wheel of your car can make a big difference to its balance. How can you show statistical insignificance?


Even an unbalanced tire will not flip over, dude.

Do the math. Calculate a percentage between the ice and the mass of the Earth. You can do math, right?
13-11-2015 11:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.


?? 1 cubic meter of ice weighs 919 kg. What's the problem?

They're cubic kilometers, not cubic meters.

2.573 * 10^18 kg. then. Still statistically insignificant.

You're probably right, but how can you be sure? After all, a tiny weight on the wheel of your car can make a big difference to its balance. How can you show statistical insignificance?


Even an unbalanced tire will not flip over, dude.

Do the math. Calculate a percentage between the ice and the mass of the Earth. You can do math, right?

I'm not claiming that the Earth will flip, but it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the melting ice will have measurable effects on factors such as the length of the day.

Yes, I can do math, as you can see from my correction of your error above.
13-11-2015 13:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
You're probably right, but how can you be sure? After all, a tiny weight on the wheel of your car can make a big difference to its balance. How can you show statistical insignificance?


If you add a mass of a billionth of the mass of the wheel what does that do?

Numbers are improtant.
13-11-2015 13:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:I'm not claiming that the Earth will flip, but it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the melting ice will have measurable effects on factors such as the length of the day.

Yes, I can do math, as you can see from my correction of your error above.


1, If you are not claiming that the earth will flip you should not use the word.

2, Yes it will/would have a measurable effect on day length. Measurable by atomic clocks but not by normal clocks. Certainly not noticable on a human scale.

This effect of day length being effected by sea level changes does provide a very good mechanism for measuring the rate of change of ice mass and thermal expansion of he oceans.

No significant change in day length has been oserved. Go figure.
13-11-2015 14:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You're probably right, but how can you be sure? After all, a tiny weight on the wheel of your car can make a big difference to its balance. How can you show statistical insignificance?


If you add a mass of a billionth of the mass of the wheel what does that do?

Numbers are improtant.

Yes, numbers are important. That's why I'm asking you to justify your claim of statistical insignificance with numbers.
13-11-2015 14:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:I'm not claiming that the Earth will flip, but it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the melting ice will have measurable effects on factors such as the length of the day.

Yes, I can do math, as you can see from my correction of your error above.


1, If you are not claiming that the earth will flip you should not use the word.

2, Yes it will/would have a measurable effect on day length. Measurable by atomic clocks but not by normal clocks. Certainly not noticable on a human scale.

This effect of day length being effected by sea level changes does provide a very good mechanism for measuring the rate of change of ice mass and thermal expansion of he oceans.

No significant change in day length has been oserved. Go figure.

1. I didn't use the word. Somebody else did.

2. Still no numbers, I see. You claim the effect would be measurable by atomic clocks but not "normal" clocks. How do you know this? Roughly how big would the effect be?

We observe that the length of the day is gradually increasing - this is why we have leap seconds every now and again. However, this is primarily due to tidal effects, not sea level changes. So no, changes in day length would not provide a very good mechanism for measuring the rate of change of ice mass and thermal expansion of he oceans.
13-11-2015 20:57
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



still learning wrote:
Jakob wrote:
­Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w
It is pretty complicated and the earth will flip too.
­


Found a journal article titled "The rotational stability of an ice-age earth" authored in part by the guy that did the video you linked to, Jerry Mitrovica. Not for everybody to read, but I think most folks can get that there is no "flipping." Not in the video, not in the journal article. Polar wander, maybe a fair amount over many thousands of years, but no sudden changes.
See: http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/161/2/491.full


Thanks. Did you read all that..?

I did not so I may ask like a fool but did you see how fast a meltdown of the ice on Greenland they have calculated with when they got the result that it (a few degree flip) will happen very slow..?



­
13-11-2015 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


That amount of that much ice weighs 2.573 * 10^9 kg



Try again.


?? 1 cubic meter of ice weighs 919 kg. What's the problem?

They're cubic kilometers, not cubic meters.

2.573 * 10^18 kg. then. Still statistically insignificant.

You're probably right, but how can you be sure? After all, a tiny weight on the wheel of your car can make a big difference to its balance. How can you show statistical insignificance?


Even an unbalanced tire will not flip over, dude.

Do the math. Calculate a percentage between the ice and the mass of the Earth. You can do math, right?

I'm not claiming that the Earth will flip, but it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the melting ice will have measurable effects on factors such as the length of the day.

Yes, I can do math, as you can see from my correction of your error above.

First, you did not correct my math, you corrected my units. That's fine...and thank you. If you are going to claim you know the math, though, you would not have asked such a question. You would've already been able to answer it.

Which is it?
13-11-2015 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You're probably right, but how can you be sure? After all, a tiny weight on the wheel of your car can make a big difference to its balance. How can you show statistical insignificance?


If you add a mass of a billionth of the mass of the wheel what does that do?

Numbers are improtant.


Damn...that's the last time I squash an ant with my tire...
13-11-2015 21:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Jakob wrote: (a few degree flip)

A "flip" usually implies 180-degrees.

A "few" degrees usually implies an acute angle.

I think that better wording in your case would be "a slight rotation of a few degrees."



Jakob wrote: will happen very slow..? ­

The earth already has natural precession, and it is pretty slow. It is the natural changing of the earth's tilt, and natural orbital wobble, that will determine the amount of ice on the surface of the earth, not the other way around.

Let's not swap the independent and dependent variables. You saw how doing so leads to bogus conclusions of non-existent forces, like "greenhouse effect."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
14-11-2015 00:22
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Jakob wrote:
­Thanks. Did you read all that..?

I did not so I may ask like a fool but did you see how fast a meltdown of the ice on Greenland they have calculated with when they got the result that it (a few degree flip) will happen very slow..?
­


Read all that?
No. Well, I think all the words went past my eyes, but comprehend all, no. Some of it is beyond me. As with many (most?) journal articles, some pretty specialized stuff, easily readable by folks current in the field, otherwise readability ranges from "less easy" to incomprehensible, depending. But I can read parts, look up other parts. My math is way too rusty though for me to follow that part of the article.

Quoting one sentence in the article: "Perturbations in the orientation of the rotation vector associated with the GIA process are small (less than ~1 degree)." (GIA refers to glacial isostatic adjustment)

In the article they didn't do anything like "how fast a meltdown of the ice on Greenland they have calculated." They quoted the results of other papers done by other folks. Most of the ice melt perturbation stuff seems to have to do with the last interglacial meltoff of several thousand years ago, much bigger than anything being considered now. Mainly the paper is about corrections, complicating factors, that the authors have come up with, corrections for other folks to use. Corrections that lessen predicted polar wander, including polar wander due to ice mass changes.

I did some Wikipedia looking, found that apparently there have been some ideas presented in the past about "cataclysmic pole shift." Crackpot stuff. Atlantis, Mu, Mesoamerican codices, Velikovsky, psychic readings and the like. Crackpot stuff. No shortage of that.
14-11-2015 13:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:I'm not claiming that the Earth will flip, but it seems perfectly reasonable to think that the melting ice will have measurable effects on factors such as the length of the day.

Yes, I can do math, as you can see from my correction of your error above.


1, If you are not claiming that the earth will flip you should not use the word.

2, Yes it will/would have a measurable effect on day length. Measurable by atomic clocks but not by normal clocks. Certainly not noticable on a human scale.

This effect of day length being effected by sea level changes does provide a very good mechanism for measuring the rate of change of ice mass and thermal expansion of he oceans.

No significant change in day length has been oserved. Go figure.

1. I didn't use the word. Somebody else did.

2. Still no numbers, I see. You claim the effect would be measurable by atomic clocks but not "normal" clocks. How do you know this? Roughly how big would the effect be?

We observe that the length of the day is gradually increasing - this is why we have leap seconds every now and again. However, this is primarily due to tidal effects, not sea level changes. So no, changes in day length would not provide a very good mechanism for measuring the rate of change of ice mass and thermal expansion of he oceans.


Mass of earth; 5.972 x 10 ^24 kg.

Mass of ice; 3 x10 ^16 kg aprox.

so the earth is 2 x 10 ^ 8 times as massive as the ice.

100 million.

I can't be bothered to do any furter maths but if you wish you can. You can reasonably assume that the ice is directly over the pole and has zero rotational momentum and that it will disperse evenly across the entire globe. Beyond that you had best look up the fairly simple equaisions of rotational momentum.
14-11-2015 17:53
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­­­



@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.



­­­
­
­
14-11-2015 20:35
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­

If a flip has to be 180 degrees the flippers in a flipper machine can not flip.



­
15-11-2015 00:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Jakob wrote: If a flip has to be 180 degrees the flippers in a flipper machine can not flip. ­


Jakob, I marvel at how many errors you were able to make in just one sentence.

1. I wrote "usually." Your use of the words "has to" implies you didn't grasp what I wrote.

2. My point involved your conflicting and confusing wording that referred to an amount that was both small and large simultaneously.

3. You committed the standard warmizombie error of swapping the dependent and independent variables. You implied that the meaning of the words somehow affects/controlls the function and performance of actual machines.

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



But just to help you out I will reinforce the lesson:

When someone flips a burger, the burger is flipped 180-degrees.

When a gymnast performs a flip, it is a 360-degree action.

When something is flipped over, it refers to something very close to 180-degrees.

When someone flips you the bird, the hand and finger form a 180-degree angle.

When you flip a coin, it must complete at least a 360-degree rotation and the final angular rotation is a multiple of 180-degrees.

Someone can be flip at any angle, even upside down.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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 02:25
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­


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.






­­
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Planet earth is a spinning top:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Does anyone knew that plastic bags were made to save the planet ?215-11-2019 02:19
Our Fragile Planet27629-09-2019 19:30
Top Presidential Candidates, plans for combating 'climate change'405-09-2019 03:15
Petition to pressure governments to save the planet and humankind1024-08-2019 05:16
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
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