 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » Another (unexpected) result of Global Warming.... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| blacklight... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I came across this notice in New Scientist Aug.22/2009:
-if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were to double by 2100, the
expansion of the warmer oceans would shift the Earth’s spin axis by
roughly 1.5cm per year (taken from Geographical Research Letters, DOI:
10.1029/2009GL039692)-
At present Earth’s axis nods 23.4° towards the plane at which we spin
around the sun. An increase of this angle would increase the seasonal
differences on Earth - hotter summers, colder winters. A decrease
would have the opposite effect.
Klaus and Rusty (the dog)
http://www.oz-greetings.com.au
Nature Wilderness Science |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 11:51 pm, blacklight <i... at (no spam) oz-greetings.com.au> wrote:
[quote]I came across this notice in New Scientist Aug.22/2009:
-if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were to double by 2100, the
expansion of the warmer oceans would shift the Earth’s spin axis by
roughly 1.5cm per year (taken from Geographical Research Letters, DOI:
10.1029/2009GL039692)-
At present Earth’s axis nods 23.4° towards the plane at which we spin
around the sun. An increase of this angle would increase the seasonal
differences on Earth - hotter summers, colder winters. A decrease
would have the opposite effect.
Klaus and Rusty (the dog)http://www.oz-greetings.com.au
Nature Wilderness Science
[/quote]
Global climate is a direct result of two major factors - distance from
the Sun and planetary dynamics while hemispherical weather patterns
(the seasons) are a secondary effect of global climate which relies on
proximity to oceans,landmass and multiple other
factors.Presently,scientists can't even get this part straight as they
assign the wrong cause for the seasons and do not recognise the actual
role of 'tilt' and you merely repeat the error "At present Earth’s
axis nods 23.4° towards the plane at which we spin around the sun".
The Earth has an equatorial climate due to its rotational orientation,
or 'tilt' as you call it, whereas Uranus has a polar climate but this
simple fact based on planetary comparisons relies on the appreciation
of the specific way a planet orbits the Sun rather than the old 'tilt'
to the orbital plane explanation.As climate factors so much into
geological investigations,I find it highly embarrassing that I cannot
find one intelligent individual who can handle the few new inputs
which modify the explanation for the seasons as a stepping stone to
dealing with global climate properly or even consider that the
planetary dynamics of the rotating viscous interior alters the old
views of a 'tilting' Earth and allows a more productive relationship
between crustal evolution and the interior dynamics behind it with
special attention given to the traits of the rotating viscous
composition showing up as signatures such as the MAR and fracture
zones ect and dealing with continental features separately for
practical purposes.
http://topex.ucsd.edu/marine_topo/gif_topo_track/topo8.gif
With the GOCE data bearing down on scientists it is the total
disregard for planetary dynamics which is now surfacing as the major
problem in effectively using observations and putting them in context
for climate,geological or other purposes and I am totally ashamed of
my race in their inability to deal with the most basic fact which
links the geometry and geography of the planet to rotation once in 24
hours instead of the freaky 'sidereal time' value.Until this is dealt
with head on,these reckless and irresponsible conclusions which turn
carbon dioxide into a global temperature dial will prevail and disrupt
the normal investigations which link geology to long term climate
patterns or some other important topic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 3:51 pm, blacklight <i... at (no spam) oz-greetings.com.au> wrote:
[quote]I came across this notice in New Scientist Aug.22/2009:
-if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were to double by 2100, the
expansion of the warmer oceans would shift the Earth’s spin axis by
roughly 1.5cm per year (taken from Geographical Research Letters, DOI:
10.1029/2009GL039692)-
At present Earth’s axis nods 23.4° towards the plane at which we spin
around the sun. An increase of this angle would increase the seasonal
differences on Earth - hotter summers, colder winters. A decrease
would have the opposite effect.
Klaus and Rusty (the dog)http://www.oz-greetings.com.au
Nature Wilderness Science
[/quote]
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf
Planet orbit, seasonal tilt and solar variances of +/- 0.1% are not
what’s making us hotter by those amounts required, nor do these
factors individually or combined remotely match up to any 100,000
year, 41,000 year and then 25,000 year ice age cycles as we take this
“oriel36” mainstream perpetrated hoax analogy back in time.
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:45 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde... at (no spam) dirtcheap.net> wrote:
Look, Brad, another kosher Republican.
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf
[/quote]
If we're currently missing out on 3 w/m2, then where exactly are those
hidden new volumes of slow ice?
If on average we’re getting colder, then why's the atmosphere holding
a greater saturation of water? (shouldn't it be the other way around?)
Earth absorbs roughly 65% because it supposedly reflects roughly 35%.
(obviously it has to reflect or expel 100%, as otherwise Earth would
have melted long ago)
5.1e14 m2 x 3 w/m2 /2 = 7.65e14 watts x .65 = 497 TW of solar energy
that our environment is supposedly missing. (??? really, honest to
God ???)
So, where's this Republican and otherwise kosher approved cache of
terrestrial cold build up, of all 497 TW/hr worth of that nifty slow
ice? (perhaps it’s hidden along with all those Muslim WMD and OBL?)
On other words, how much slow ice can even 1% of 497 TW/hr (5 TW/hr)
create? (especially if it’s supposedly only getting colder to start
with)
How much of this solar (+/- 0.1%) energy on the long haul actually
sticks with Earth? (how about none), because doesn't that pesky law of
(energy in) always have to equal (energy out), or else?
Is this solar energy otherwise creating/contributing invisible mass
(more than Earth has been losing)?
Other than our sun and its +/- 0.1% flux, what else has been
contributing or extracting energy to/from our environment? (our Selene/
moon comes to mind, and Sirius isn’t exactly out of the loop)
If we could manage to convert <0.0000001% of Earth into energy each
and every year (5,974e9 tonnes, or 885 tonnes/yr per person), doesn't
that ongoing rate of human consumption/conversion ever count for
anything?
[quote]http://tinyurl.com/n92dlp
[/quote]
And those previous 41,000 year cycles are somehow explained as well as
those previous 25,000 year ice-age cycles, as somehow covered by this
supposed 100,000 year elliptical distorted trek that has us associated
with our passive (+/- 0.1%) sun?
If we're currently 0.2% down from the peak of solar irradiance, then
why on average is the entire globe and our artificially polluted
environment getting wetter and otherwise still thawing out from the
last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see?
If your kosher republican GC(global cooling) science was even 50%
correct, then shouldn’t we already have been measurably well into the
next ice age?
With global energy reserves nearing an all time minimum per human, and
otherwise getting downright spendy and/or bloody as hell; how exactly
is the vast bulk of humanity and most other aspects of our global
biodiversity going to survive this supposed next deep-freeze ice age
cycle that you kosher republicans claim is unavoidably under way?
Are you also suggesting the commercial, industrial and public mass
consumption of fresh water also has nothing whatsoever to do with
having modified our environment or the affordable availability of
humanly safe fresh water? (it seems many previously reliable sources
of fresh water are either gone entirely, badly depleted and/or
polluted)
Are you folks also into suggesting that acidic and toxic saturated
fresh water, as well as the 250,000 km2 of ocean dead zones is
perfectly natural?
Can you list what cycles of whatever’s on Earth that are unnatural, or
otherwise merely neutral if not actually good for the environment?
Are any of you Republicans and kosher faith-based approved freaks
further suggesting, that if we should manage to lose 90% of Earth’s
biodiversity, that somehow this outcome would be another good thing?
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:46 am
|
|