Remember me
▼ Content

Some Things To Consider



Page 1 of 212>
Some Things To Consider21-01-2018 02:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Scientists haven't yet stated why we have ice age cycles.
For the most part they are a northern hemisphere event. This points to the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges as playing a role.
It is possible that when the glaciers in the Arctic have melted sufficiently the ridges will start sealing again. And when this happens then the northern hemisphere will start slowly cooling again.
There are other things to consider as well. If this happens then our planet's orbit around the Sun can change.
With the heat that we're dumping into our atmosphere, nuclear and coal power plants release about the same amount of heat.
It might be possible to close some deep faults which could cool the Arctic.Why all of this matters is that it might be possible to control the weather.
If we can't do that then it's possible we'll start towards an ice age. While most would consider it nothing to be concerned about, temperatures would slowly be dropping from what we are experiencing now.
Kind of why more research is need to better understand the specific cause and effect that are associated with ice ages.
21-01-2018 06:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote:....cycles..... again.... again..... planet's orbit around the Sun can change..... cool the Arctic..... ice age.....temperatures... be dropping from what we are experiencing now. Kind of why more research is need(ed)...
AGW denier liar whiners just got ta babble about.... cyclical things...
Earth's orbital change doesn't account for Earth bio-sphere warming & doesn't account for Earth high atmosphere cooling. The half century languid sun & 11+ year low solar TSI (including a 3+ year TSI setting a 100 year record low), doesn't explain Earth bio-sphere warming & doesn't account for Earth high atmosphere cooling. But when solar TSI DOES return to normal, Earth bio-sphere will heat even more. & more increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs & their positive feedbacks will & is driving Earth bio-sphere heat quicker than normal Earth bio-sphere actions. AGW denier liar whiners ken't 'splain nuthun.
Don't need more research. AGW denier liar whiners jes' want more "Paralysis of Analysis", so's their rich millionaire friends(more like, fiends) become billionaires, spewing coal fumes & "texas tea" in the air.
Edited on 21-01-2018 06:53
21-01-2018 08:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:....cycles..... again.... again..... planet's orbit around the Sun can change..... cool the Arctic..... ice age.....temperatures... be dropping from what we are experiencing now. Kind of why more research is need(ed)...
AGW denier liar whiners just got ta babble about.... cyclical things...
Earth's orbital change doesn't account for Earth bio-sphere warming & doesn't account for Earth high atmosphere cooling. The half century languid sun & 11+ year low solar TSI (including a 3+ year TSI setting a 100 year record low), doesn't explain Earth bio-sphere warming & doesn't account for Earth high atmosphere cooling. But when solar TSI DOES return to normal, Earth bio-sphere will heat even more. & more increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs & their positive feedbacks will & is driving Earth bio-sphere heat quicker than normal Earth bio-sphere actions. AGW denier liar whiners ken't 'splain nuthun.
Don't need more research. AGW denier liar whiners jes' want more "Paralysis of Analysis", so's their rich millionaire friends(more like, fiends) become billionaires, spewing coal fumes & "texas tea" in the air.


What started warming the Earth during the last ice age was because it was closer to the Sun. Amore circular orbit would explain this. With the Earth having a slower spin then a more elliptical orbit would not be surprising. And with such an orbit the Earth might spend more time away from the Sun causing our planet to cool. This would be one concern of accelerating an interglacial period.
And in the absence of man's influence a changing orbit can account for ice age cycles. But without understanding the natural cycle of ice ages then we might make mistakes that could be avoidable.
21-01-2018 10:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote: What started warming the Earth during the last ice age was because it was closer to the Sun. Amore circular orbit would explain this. With the Earth having a slower spin then a more elliptical orbit would not be surprising. And with such an orbit the Earth might spend more time away from the Sun causing our planet to cool. This would be one concern of accelerating an interglacial period.
And in the absence of man's influence a changing orbit can account for ice age cycles. But without understanding the natural cycle of ice ages then we might make mistakes that could be avoidable.


You have no expertise in solar mechanics & have no authority for your statements....just more "Paralysis of Analysis". As stated, no orbital changes over the last 150 years explain the wild increase in Earth bio-sphere warming. Any explanation of exterrestial changes to Earth bio-sphere warming must first start at the solar TSI, which has been languid for half a century & low for 11+ years, which means the past 50 years should have been cooling & the last 11+ years should have been cooling even quicker.
The addition of 3 trillion tons of non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs PLUS their positive feedbacks DOES explain Earth bio-sphere warming AND high altitude atmosphere cooling. & when solar TSI returns to normal, additional melts & warming will really wind UP the AGW count DOWN.
Don't need more research. As stated, AGW denier liar whiners jes' want more "Paralysis of Analysis".
21-01-2018 12:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Scientists haven't yet stated why we have ice age cycles.
For the most part they are a northern hemisphere event. This points to the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges as playing a role.
It is possible that when the glaciers in the Arctic have melted sufficiently the ridges will start sealing again. And when this happens then the northern hemisphere will start slowly cooling again.
There are other things to consider as well. If this happens then our planet's orbit around the Sun can change.
With the heat that we're dumping into our atmosphere, nuclear and coal power plants release about the same amount of heat.
It might be possible to close some deep faults which could cool the Arctic.Why all of this matters is that it might be possible to control the weather.
If we can't do that then it's possible we'll start towards an ice age. While most would consider it nothing to be concerned about, temperatures would slowly be dropping from what we are experiencing now.
Kind of why more research is need to better understand the specific cause and effect that are associated with ice ages.


Science has worked out that we have ice ages when there is land mass over the poles.

That most land is in the Northern hemesphere makes this a mostly Northern phenomenon. These ice ages are made intense or slight (interglacials) by the orbit and more importantly the degree of inclination of the earth.

If there are ocean currents circulating freely across the poles then there is no ice age.

The present situation of a restricted inland sea over the North pole is almost the same.

When summers are not much different to winters and the pole has little transfered heat by ocean circulation then there is a real intense ice age.
21-01-2018 13:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Scientists haven't yet stated why we have ice age cycles.
For the most part they are a northern hemisphere event. This points to the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges as playing a role.
It is possible that when the glaciers in the Arctic have melted sufficiently the ridges will start sealing again. And when this happens then the northern hemisphere will start slowly cooling again.
There are other things to consider as well. If this happens then our planet's orbit around the Sun can change.
With the heat that we're dumping into our atmosphere, nuclear and coal power plants release about the same amount of heat.
It might be possible to close some deep faults which could cool the Arctic.Why all of this matters is that it might be possible to control the weather.
If we can't do that then it's possible we'll start towards an ice age. While most would consider it nothing to be concerned about, temperatures would slowly be dropping from what we are experiencing now.
Kind of why more research is need to better understand the specific cause and effect that are associated with ice ages.


Science has worked out that we have ice ages when there is land mass over the poles.

That most land is in the Northern hemesphere makes this a mostly Northern phenomenon. These ice ages are made intense or slight (interglacials) by the orbit and more importantly the degree of inclination of the earth.

If there are ocean currents circulating freely across the poles then there is no ice age.

The present situation of a restricted inland sea over the North pole is almost the same.

When summers are not much different to winters and the pole has little transfered heat by ocean circulation then there is a real intense ice age.


Tim the plumber wrote:
These ice ages are made intense or slight (interglacials) by the orbit and more importantly the degree of inclination of the earth.


This is the same thing I said. I gave a different reason for it happening though. During an ice age our planet has a more circular orbit around the Sun. This means it's average distance from the Sun decreases. This is what warms our planet.
Yet if our planet is slowly moving further from the Sun (average distance) in it's orbit and is still warming then we might have a problem.
21-01-2018 14:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Scientists haven't yet stated why we have ice age cycles.
For the most part they are a northern hemisphere event. This points to the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges as playing a role.
It is possible that when the glaciers in the Arctic have melted sufficiently the ridges will start sealing again. And when this happens then the northern hemisphere will start slowly cooling again.
There are other things to consider as well. If this happens then our planet's orbit around the Sun can change.
With the heat that we're dumping into our atmosphere, nuclear and coal power plants release about the same amount of heat.
It might be possible to close some deep faults which could cool the Arctic.Why all of this matters is that it might be possible to control the weather.
If we can't do that then it's possible we'll start towards an ice age. While most would consider it nothing to be concerned about, temperatures would slowly be dropping from what we are experiencing now.
Kind of why more research is need to better understand the specific cause and effect that are associated with ice ages.


Science has worked out that we have ice ages when there is land mass over the poles.

That most land is in the Northern hemesphere makes this a mostly Northern phenomenon. These ice ages are made intense or slight (interglacials) by the orbit and more importantly the degree of inclination of the earth.

If there are ocean currents circulating freely across the poles then there is no ice age.

The present situation of a restricted inland sea over the North pole is almost the same.

When summers are not much different to winters and the pole has little transfered heat by ocean circulation then there is a real intense ice age.


Tim the plumber wrote:
These ice ages are made intense or slight (interglacials) by the orbit and more importantly the degree of inclination of the earth.


This is the same thing I said. I gave a different reason for it happening though. During an ice age our planet has a more circular orbit around the Sun. This means it's average distance from the Sun decreases. This is what warms our planet.
Yet if our planet is slowly moving further from the Sun (average distance) in it's orbit and is still warming then we might have a problem.


1, I presume you mean increases.

2, No. The distance to the sun is not the significant factor. It is not all that important compared to the angle of inclination of the earth's axis.

When the tilt is slight the summers are cool and don't melt the winter snow as quickly.

When the tilt is a lot the winters are colder but so what? It is the summer melting that makes the difference.

3, The sun is gradually increasing in output as the conditions in the interior of the sun have less hydrogen and more helium. This reduces the ease with wich the hydrogen does it's fusion thus the sun's inner core collapses making the process of fusing hydrogen hotter. As and when it runs out of hydrogen in the inner core it will cause a collapse of the inner core and it wil start fusing helium because the pressure and temperature will go up a lot. This will blow away lots of the outer sun and we will have a red giant.
23-01-2018 00:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Scientists haven't yet stated why we have ice age cycles.
For the most part they are a northern hemisphere event. This points to the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges as playing a role.
It is possible that when the glaciers in the Arctic have melted sufficiently the ridges will start sealing again. And when this happens then the northern hemisphere will start slowly cooling again.
There are other things to consider as well. If this happens then our planet's orbit around the Sun can change.
With the heat that we're dumping into our atmosphere, nuclear and coal power plants release about the same amount of heat.
It might be possible to close some deep faults which could cool the Arctic.Why all of this matters is that it might be possible to control the weather.
If we can't do that then it's possible we'll start towards an ice age. While most would consider it nothing to be concerned about, temperatures would slowly be dropping from what we are experiencing now.
Kind of why more research is need to better understand the specific cause and effect that are associated with ice ages.


The ice age events aren't a northern hemisphere event. During a full blown ice age we have a "snowball Earth" which means that glaciers grow on all of the mountains in the world. These are largely in the northern hemisphere simply because that's where most of the land is.

As these glaciers grow sea levels drop, more land is exposed and more glaciers are formed. In Africa they haven't had glaciers for a very long time, in geological time, except on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Mt. Kenya and Rwenzori Mountains. In South America the glaciers of Chile cover 2.7% (20,188 km^2) of the land area of the country. There are glacial striations in Africa and South America that line up with each other showing that the glaciers were everywhere.
23-01-2018 17:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
The Earth's orbit might become more elliptical as the glaciers in the Arctic melt. If so then the Earth's average distance from the Sun could increase.
Attached image:

23-01-2018 19:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.
24-01-2018 02:50
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)
24-01-2018 03:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)


No, Wake has it right on this one. In addition, Earth's orbit is currently becoming less eccentric, not more (meaning a more circular orbit). We are not expected to reach minimum eccentricity for 28,000 years.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2018 05:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)


No, Wake has it right on this one. In addition, Earth's orbit is currently becoming less eccentric, not more (meaning a more circular orbit). We are not expected to reach minimum eccentricity for 28,000 years.


Says the guy who claims we can't measure the temperature of the oceans. Pointless to say anything.
24-01-2018 05:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1431)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)


No, Wake has it right on this one. In addition, Earth's orbit is currently becoming less eccentric, not more (meaning a more circular orbit). We are not expected to reach minimum eccentricity for 28,000 years.


Says the guy who claims we can't measure the temperature of the oceans. Pointless to say anything.


We've been through this...

You can measure it all you want, you just can't measure it all.
24-01-2018 12:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)


No.

The distribution of mass within the earth will have no effect on the orbit of the earth around the sun.

It will change day length. That's all.
24-01-2018 15:31
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
I'll give you guys the answer. When there aren't any glaciers in the Arctic then when the Moon's gravity pulls on the Earth, the Earth's axial tilt will be more. This is because the Antarctic ice mass will still be there without an opposing mass in the Arctic.
I think though this is getting more into astronomy.
24-01-2018 16:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)


No, Wake has it right on this one. In addition, Earth's orbit is currently becoming less eccentric, not more (meaning a more circular orbit). We are not expected to reach minimum eccentricity for 28,000 years.


Says the guy who claims we can't measure the temperature of the oceans. Pointless to say anything.


Says the guy who clearly has bipolar disorder. You have such a phobia that if someone tells you that you should clean your nails you believe that they have threatened your life.
24-01-2018 17:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:


Says the guy who clearly has bipolar disorder. You have such a phobia that if someone tells you that you should clean your nails you believe that they have threatened your life.



Wake,
I am sorry that you do not understand basic astronomy. Astronomers always consider that Suns wobble because of the planets orbiting them.
With the Earth and the Moon, a decrease of the Earth's gravity because of the Moon's influence is similar to it being pulled. High and low tides on Earth are excellent examples of this.
And with glaciers on only one pole, not only would the Earth's rotational velocity slow (Conservation of Angular Momentum), it's axial tilt would also increase.
I know you don't have the time to consider this. It'd mean that you have to accept that there's a lot that you don't know. It does show. Your insults strongly suggest this.
24-01-2018 18:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


Says the guy who clearly has bipolar disorder. You have such a phobia that if someone tells you that you should clean your nails you believe that they have threatened your life.



Wake,
I am sorry that you do not understand basic astronomy. Astronomers always consider that Suns wobble because of the planets orbiting them.
With the Earth and the Moon, a decrease of the Earth's gravity because of the Moon's influence is similar to it being pulled. High and low tides on Earth are excellent examples of this.
And with glaciers on only one pole, not only would the Earth's rotational velocity slow (Conservation of Angular Momentum), it's axial tilt would also increase.
I know you don't have the time to consider this. It'd mean that you have to accept that there's a lot that you don't know. It does show. Your insults strongly suggest this.


Do we always have to put up with your ignorance? Tides are CAUSED by the gravity field of the Sun and only modified by that of the Moon.

The Earth's wobble is part of the Milankovitch cycles and has been explained for a century without you telling us it had something to do with glaciers. 2% of the land area of Chile are covered with glaciers and there are still glaciers in Africa at high altitude. New Zealand has glaciers.

The total weight of ALL of the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica are only that of 0.41 cubic miles of sea water. Since freshwater is lighter the actual weight is even less. Most people would know that since the Earth's oceans are some 333 Million cubic miles that melting glaciers have NO EFFECT on the Milankovitch cycles which include the axial wobble of the Earth.

Is there something wrong with you ever learning something before theorizing on it?
24-01-2018 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)


No, Wake has it right on this one. In addition, Earth's orbit is currently becoming less eccentric, not more (meaning a more circular orbit). We are not expected to reach minimum eccentricity for 28,000 years.


Says the guy who claims we can't measure the temperature of the oceans. Pointless to say anything.

You can't measure the temperature of the oceans. Learn statistical mathematics to understand why.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2018 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
The weight of the Earth doesn't change with the redistribution of water. The redistribution of that weight changes the balance of the Earth so slightly as to be undetectable. The balance of the Earth cannot change its orbit or that of the Moon.


I had a math teacher once explain to me that you can't help a D student. You're an example of this Wake. :-)


No.

The distribution of mass within the earth will have no effect on the orbit of the earth around the sun.

It will change day length. That's all.


Probably not. Even if the polar ice melts, the water isn't going to just leave the poles and leave a void.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2018 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James_ wrote:
I'll give you guys the answer. When there aren't any glaciers in the Arctic then when the Moon's gravity pulls on the Earth, the Earth's axial tilt will be more. This is because the Antarctic ice mass will still be there without an opposing mass in the Arctic.
I think though this is getting more into astronomy.


Why would one pole melt and not the other?


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2018 20:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


Says the guy who clearly has bipolar disorder. You have such a phobia that if someone tells you that you should clean your nails you believe that they have threatened your life.



Wake,
I am sorry that you do not understand basic astronomy. Astronomers always consider that Suns wobble because of the planets orbiting them.

Suns don't 'wobble'. They orbit the planets orbiting them. Their mass is so great compared to the planets, though, that the movement is barely perceivable. The same thing happens between the Earth and the Moon. They orbit each other around a center point that is within the Earth itself.
James_ wrote:
With the Earth and the Moon, a decrease of the Earth's gravity because of the Moon's influence is similar to it being pulled. High and low tides on Earth are excellent examples of this.

Tides are not caused by Earth's gravity changing. They are caused by the center point of the Earth and Moon orbiting each other not being at the center of the mass of the Earth, and the Earth rotating beneath the position of the Moon (as projected onto the Earth's surface).
James_ wrote:
And with glaciers on only one pole, not only would the Earth's rotational velocity slow (Conservation of Angular Momentum), it's axial tilt would also increase.

Why? Nothing would change the 'tilt', which is actually just the angle of the Earth's spin relative to the Sun.
James_ wrote:
I know you don't have the time to consider this. It'd mean that you have to accept that there's a lot that you don't know.

It is obvious that you don't know classical mechanics. I suggest you go study it, especially the area of angular momentum.
James_ wrote:
It does show. Your insults strongly suggest this.

While insults are a fallacy, their use is only a problem when a so-called argument depends on them. Since a fallacy is not an argument, any such 'argument' doesn't exist. It's kind of ironic that some fallacies use the term 'argument' in their naming conventions.

The use of too many insults indicates a weakness of an argument, a weakness in the command of a language, or a weakness in reasoning.

Insults do not show lack of knowledge.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2018 20:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
And 2 wrongs (Wake & ITN) don't make a right :-)
24-01-2018 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


Says the guy who clearly has bipolar disorder. You have such a phobia that if someone tells you that you should clean your nails you believe that they have threatened your life.



Wake,
I am sorry that you do not understand basic astronomy. Astronomers always consider that Suns wobble because of the planets orbiting them.
With the Earth and the Moon, a decrease of the Earth's gravity because of the Moon's influence is similar to it being pulled. High and low tides on Earth are excellent examples of this.
And with glaciers on only one pole, not only would the Earth's rotational velocity slow (Conservation of Angular Momentum), it's axial tilt would also increase.
I know you don't have the time to consider this. It'd mean that you have to accept that there's a lot that you don't know. It does show. Your insults strongly suggest this.


Do we always have to put up with your ignorance? Tides are CAUSED by the gravity field of the Sun and only modified by that of the Moon.

Incorrect. Tides are caused by the offset center of gravity between the Earth and the Moon, and between the Earth-Moon system and the Sun. The Moon, being closer, has a greater effect on the tides despite it's much smaller mass compared to the Sun.
Wake wrote:
The Earth's wobble is part of the Milankovitch cycles

No, it is because the Moon and the Earth orbit each other. The Moon doesn't just orbit the Earth. The change in axial tilt from the Milankovitch cycles are not the Earth's 'wobble'.
Wake wrote:
and has been explained for a century without you telling us it had something to do with glaciers. 2% of the land area of Chile are covered with glaciers and there are still glaciers in Africa at high altitude. New Zealand has glaciers.

This is correct. Glaciers do not cause the Earth to change it's tilt or it's orbit. Changes in the Earth's orbit can cause glaciers though.
Wake wrote:
The total weight of ALL of the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica are only that of 0.41 cubic miles of sea water. Since freshwater is lighter the actual weight is even less. Most people would know that since the Earth's oceans are some 333 Million cubic miles that melting glaciers have NO EFFECT on the Milankovitch cycles which include the axial wobble of the Earth.

Generally correct. Antarctica itself (the continent) is much heavier than the ice sitting on it. The ice that DOES sit on it changes dramatically with each passing season. The Earth doesn't change it's tilt at all during the seasonal changes in Antarctic ice.
Wake wrote:
Is there something wrong with you ever learning something before theorizing on it?

The short answer? No. The reason? It's part of the learning process, even if the theory is bogus.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2018 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James_ wrote:
And 2 wrongs (Wake & ITN) don't make a right :-)


Argument of the Stone, resulting in an inversion fallacy.

Rather than presenting any kind of counter-argument, you just decide to discard an argument without cause...a fallacy.

By attempting to reassign that your argument has problems upon the one pointing out that your argument has problems is inverting the argument...also a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2018 21:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


Says the guy who clearly has bipolar disorder. You have such a phobia that if someone tells you that you should clean your nails you believe that they have threatened your life.



Wake,
I am sorry that you do not understand basic astronomy. Astronomers always consider that Suns wobble because of the planets orbiting them.
With the Earth and the Moon, a decrease of the Earth's gravity because of the Moon's influence is similar to it being pulled. High and low tides on Earth are excellent examples of this.
And with glaciers on only one pole, not only would the Earth's rotational velocity slow (Conservation of Angular Momentum), it's axial tilt would also increase.
I know you don't have the time to consider this. It'd mean that you have to accept that there's a lot that you don't know. It does show. Your insults strongly suggest this.


Do we always have to put up with your ignorance? Tides are CAUSED by the gravity field of the Sun and only modified by that of the Moon.

Incorrect. Tides are caused by the offset center of gravity between the Earth and the Moon, and between the Earth-Moon system and the Sun. The Moon, being closer, has a greater effect on the tides despite it's much smaller mass compared to the Sun.
Wake wrote:
The Earth's wobble is part of the Milankovitch cycles

No, it is because the Moon and the Earth orbit each other. The Moon doesn't just orbit the Earth. The change in axial tilt from the Milankovitch cycles are not the Earth's 'wobble'.
Wake wrote:
and has been explained for a century without you telling us it had something to do with glaciers. 2% of the land area of Chile are covered with glaciers and there are still glaciers in Africa at high altitude. New Zealand has glaciers.

This is correct. Glaciers do not cause the Earth to change it's tilt or it's orbit. Changes in the Earth's orbit can cause glaciers though.
Wake wrote:
The total weight of ALL of the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica are only that of 0.41 cubic miles of sea water. Since freshwater is lighter the actual weight is even less. Most people would know that since the Earth's oceans are some 333 Million cubic miles that melting glaciers have NO EFFECT on the Milankovitch cycles which include the axial wobble of the Earth.

Generally correct. Antarctica itself (the continent) is much heavier than the ice sitting on it. The ice that DOES sit on it changes dramatically with each passing season. The Earth doesn't change it's tilt at all during the seasonal changes in Antarctic ice.
Wake wrote:
Is there something wrong with you ever learning something before theorizing on it?

The short answer? No. The reason? It's part of the learning process, even if the theory is bogus.


After assessing Newton's laws of gravitation I admit that the Moon has approximately the same effect on tides that the Sun has. The gravitational effect of the Sun is 170 or so times that of the moon at their respective distances but the effects of the Moon on tides presides as Tide generating force is about Mass/Distance^3. That means that the Sun only has 46% of the tide generating force and the Moon 54%.

The mass difference between the Earth and the Moon is so large that the change in the Earth's rotation due to the Moon is bare inches from the Earth's center of rotation. Jupiter actually has more effect on the Earth's orbit that the Moon does.
24-01-2018 22:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:


Says the guy who clearly has bipolar disorder. You have such a phobia that if someone tells you that you should clean your nails you believe that they have threatened your life.



Wake,
I am sorry that you do not understand basic astronomy. Astronomers always consider that Suns wobble because of the planets orbiting them.
With the Earth and the Moon, a decrease of the Earth's gravity because of the Moon's influence is similar to it being pulled. High and low tides on Earth are excellent examples of this.
And with glaciers on only one pole, not only would the Earth's rotational velocity slow (Conservation of Angular Momentum), it's axial tilt would also increase.
I know you don't have the time to consider this. It'd mean that you have to accept that there's a lot that you don't know. It does show. Your insults strongly suggest this.


Do we always have to put up with your ignorance? Tides are CAUSED by the gravity field of the Sun and only modified by that of the Moon.

Incorrect. Tides are caused by the offset center of gravity between the Earth and the Moon, and between the Earth-Moon system and the Sun. The Moon, being closer, has a greater effect on the tides despite it's much smaller mass compared to the Sun.
Wake wrote:
The Earth's wobble is part of the Milankovitch cycles

No, it is because the Moon and the Earth orbit each other. The Moon doesn't just orbit the Earth. The change in axial tilt from the Milankovitch cycles are not the Earth's 'wobble'.
Wake wrote:
and has been explained for a century without you telling us it had something to do with glaciers. 2% of the land area of Chile are covered with glaciers and there are still glaciers in Africa at high altitude. New Zealand has glaciers.

This is correct. Glaciers do not cause the Earth to change it's tilt or it's orbit. Changes in the Earth's orbit can cause glaciers though.
Wake wrote:
The total weight of ALL of the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica are only that of 0.41 cubic miles of sea water. Since freshwater is lighter the actual weight is even less. Most people would know that since the Earth's oceans are some 333 Million cubic miles that melting glaciers have NO EFFECT on the Milankovitch cycles which include the axial wobble of the Earth.

Generally correct. Antarctica itself (the continent) is much heavier than the ice sitting on it. The ice that DOES sit on it changes dramatically with each passing season. The Earth doesn't change it's tilt at all during the seasonal changes in Antarctic ice.
Wake wrote:
Is there something wrong with you ever learning something before theorizing on it?

The short answer? No. The reason? It's part of the learning process, even if the theory is bogus.


After assessing Newton's laws of gravitation I admit that the Moon has approximately the same effect on tides that the Sun has. The gravitational effect of the Sun is 170 or so times that of the moon at their respective distances but the effects of the Moon on tides presides as Tide generating force is about Mass/Distance^3. That means that the Sun only has 46% of the tide generating force and the Moon 54%.

The mass difference between the Earth and the Moon is so large that the change in the Earth's rotation due to the Moon is bare inches from the Earth's center of rotation. Jupiter actually has more effect on the Earth's orbit that the Moon does.


Your math is based on the difference in gravity, not on the center of gravity. You should include the effects of the center of gravity of the respective systems.

The center of gravity between the Earth-Moon system (the point that the Earth and the Moon orbit each other) is about 2900 miles from the center of the Earth. This is still inside the Earth, which has a radius of approx 3690 miles.

The center of gravity of Earth and the Sun is about 230 miles from the center of the Sun, which has a radius of approx 432,300 miles.

The result produces a tidal effect that is approx. 66% caused by the Moon, and about 33% caused by the Sun. These are measurable effects in the tidal pattern on Earth, and everything adds up to what is measured.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2018 01:50
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.

You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeC_6bOFqs
Edited on 25-01-2018 01:58
25-01-2018 01:58
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1431)
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.


I surely don't want to argue with someone that knows they are wrong. ??!!
Edited on 25-01-2018 01:59
25-01-2018 02:11
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote: You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)
James..... their accurate names, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1), narrows that possibility, dramatically.
Edited on 25-01-2018 02:16
25-01-2018 03:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.


I surely don't want to argue with someone that knows they are wrong. ??!!


Gasguzzler,
There is a reason ice ages are cyclical. Nothing they post considers that. And if we don't know that then we can't know if we are influencing it.
25-01-2018 03:14
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)
James..... their accurate names, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1), narrows that possibility, dramatically.


Thank you litesong. You always seem to have a way of simplifying things.
25-01-2018 03:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.


I surely don't want to argue with someone that knows they are wrong. ??!!


I used to, among my many talents, be a professional musician. I could play many instruments but in bands played bass guitar. I always missed playing real music. But my wife was a music major and the four children all play piano like her and one is closing in on being good at only 40.

Imagine a time when child prodigies could play real music. And write it. When the town squares would ring with music from an orchestra and people would dance together instead of jiggling by themselves.

I went to my 50th high school reunion a couple of years ago and no one knew how to dance and hardly anyone could move well enough to do so. I never had so many toes stepped on. I was about the only one there that didn't need a walker and could still do 100 miles bike ride in under 8 hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTqrAZeAvjo
25-01-2018 04:03
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)
James..... their accurate names, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1), narrows that possibility, dramatically.
Thank you litesong. You always seem to have a way of simplifying things.
Thank you, James for understanding..... even tho I ran out of gas before I wrote out the full accurate name of "many time threatener(plus 1) wake-me-up".
25-01-2018 05:21
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)
James..... their accurate names, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time threatener (plus 1), narrows that possibility, dramatically.
Thank you litesong. You always seem to have a way of simplifying things.
Thank you, James for understanding..... even tho I ran out of gas before I wrote out the full accurate name of "many time threatener(plus 1) wake-me-up".


You're Welcome. I've got a fever now so will take it easy.
As far as climate change goes, probably the best thing we can do is to cool the Arctic. Even if that means looking for heat ventsin the sea floor or cooling heat put out by industrialization.
25-01-2018 07:53
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]James_ wrote:.... probably the best thing we can do is to cool the Arctic.
The increase in air temperature of the Arctic (more so in the High Arctic), is during periods when the sun is very near & most often below the horizon as viewed from the North Pole. It can be surmised that some of this excess AGW heat is rising from the Arctic Ocean & seas that subsequently absorbed solar heat due to missing sea ice that WAS present before the 1980's & reflected solar light to space. Presently, water now uncovered is as much as ~ 2 million square kilometers. However, if excess AGW heat was only the radiated solar absorbed heat from the oceans, the Arctic & High Arctic temperature anomalies above the average Arctic & High Arctic temperatures would decrease, through the course of the winter & early spring. But the anomalies hold high during those months of total solar darkness. Many indications show that much excess AGW heat is pouring into the Arctic & High Arctic from southern climes... big time. Yes, & it is so obvious during the long Arctic & High Arctic 24 hours per day of darkness.
25-01-2018 16:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.


I surely don't want to argue with someone that knows they are wrong. ??!!


Gasguzzler,
There is a reason ice ages are cyclical. Nothing they post considers that. And if we don't know that then we can't know if we are influencing it.


Ice ages are not cyclical. They occur - period.
25-01-2018 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.

You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)




Inversion fallacy. Did you even consider the possibility that you're wrong?


The Parrot Killer
26-01-2018 16:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.

You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)




Inversion fallacy. Did you even consider the possibility that you're wrong?


I checked what Wake posted. He was obviously wrong. As for you, I think you just like messing with Europeans.
When you say "inversion fallacy", that is your opinion just as Wake's opinion is that ice ages aren't cyclical. You both present your opinions as fact when they are merely opinions.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"

In this case when both Wake and ITN state their opinions as fact they are demonstrating what a fallacy is.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Some Things To Consider:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
Crown Capital Management Environmental Reviews 16 Things That Colleges are Doing to Help the Environment509-08-2019 23:48
16 Things Colleges Are Doing to HARM the Environment108-08-2019 23:40
How is believing CO2 shine IR down like mirrors any different than believing heavier things fall faster525-03-2019 21:51
Greta Thunberg, schoolgirl climate change warrior: 'Some people can let things go. I can't'111-03-2019 19:25
▲ 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