Global Warming?

You should really post this in the Science forum.

Global warming doesn't change the rotation and tilt of the earth or the fact that it revolves around the sun. Winter wouldn't go away if the earth warmed 5C. It changes the number of days that are below freezing which in turn changes climate.

Religion does seem as good a forum as any for someone that wants to post that winter proves there isn't any global warming.

Global warming doesn't change the rotation and tilt of the earth or the fact that it revolves around the sun.

parados wrote:

Global warming doesn't change the rotation and tilt of the earth or the fact that it revolves around the sun. Winter wouldn't go away if the earth warmed 5C. It changes the number of days that are below freezing which in turn changes climate.

Religion does seem as good a forum as any for someone that wants to post that winter proves there isn't any global warming.

parados wrote:

Global warming doesn't change the rotation and tilt of the earth or the fact that it revolves around the sun.

Have you ever heard about the idea of pole shift? What about pole reversal?

There is some speculation that back 440 million years ago, when the earth was 5-10 degrees Celsius colder than it is now while carbon-dioxide levels were 10 times higher, the South Pole was located closer to Africa. This upset the earth's rotation on its axis and thus altered the earth's climate.

It is theoretically possible that a cold climate, such as an ice age, could cause so much ice to build up at the poles that the earth shifts on its axis which could make the earth colder or warmer depending on what part of the earth's surface is placed closer/further from the sun.

Land and water absorb and store heat at different rates so the earth's climate is affected by whether or not more land or more water is closest to the sun.

flaja wrote:

parados wrote:

Global warming doesn't change the rotation and tilt of the earth or the fact that it revolves around the sun. Winter wouldn't go away if the earth warmed 5C. It changes the number of days that are below freezing which in turn changes climate.

Religion does seem as good a forum as any for someone that wants to post that winter proves there isn't any global warming.

parados wrote:

Global warming doesn't change the rotation and tilt of the earth or the fact that it revolves around the sun.

Have you ever heard about the idea of pole shift? What about pole reversal?

Yes I have and the change of the magnetic field doesn't shift the earth's orbit or its rotation.

Quote:

There is some speculation that back 440 million years ago, when the earth was 5-10 degrees Celsius colder than it is now while carbon-dioxide levels were 10 times higher, the South Pole was located closer to Africa. This upset the earth's rotation on its axis and thus altered the earth's climate.

That would be quite fantastic if it did that. It would mean that everything we know about angular momentum in physics could well be wrong.

Quote:

It is theoretically possible that a cold climate, such as an ice age, could cause so much ice to build up at the poles that the earth shifts on its axis which could make the earth colder or warmer depending on what part of the earth's surface is placed closer/further from the sun.

The earth does have a wobble but what you are proposing would defy the laws of physics as we know them. Ignoring for a moment that the rotation helps to keep our orbit what it is lets assume we can keep the same orbit and spin the earth any direction we want. The same amount of the earth's surface is always facing the sun give or take a small % for angular momentum bulging. Hold a ball up to a light source. Let me know when you can get more of the ball to be lit by simply spinning it in a different direction.

Quote:

Land and water absorb and store heat at different rates so the earth's climate is affected by whether or not more land or more water is closest to the sun.

Yes, that is true. It's called the albedo effect but get back to me when you have evidence of the continents moving rapidly in the last 100 years.

Yes I have and the change of the magnetic field doesn't shift the earth's orbit or its rotation.

That would be quite fantastic if it did that. It would mean that everything we know about angular momentum in physics could well be wrong.

The earth does have a wobble but what you are proposing would defy the laws of physics as we know them.

Ignoring for a moment that the rotation helps to keep our orbit what it is lets assume we can keep the same orbit and spin the earth any direction we want.

The same amount of the earth's surface is always facing the sun give or take a small % for angular momentum bulging.

Hold a ball up to a light source. Let me know when you can get more of the ball to be lit by simply spinning it in a different direction.

Yes, that is true. It's called the albedo effect but get back to me when you have evidence of the continents moving rapidly in the last 100 years.

parados wrote:

Yes I have and the change of the magnetic field doesn't shift the earth's orbit or its rotation.

The earth wobbles like a top as it spins on its axis. Moving the poles alters this wobble and thus does alter the earth's rotation around its axis and orbit around the sun.

Quote:

That would be quite fantastic if it did that. It would mean that everything we know about angular momentum in physics could well be wrong.

So what of it? How do we know with certainty that everything we know about angular momentum is true under all conditions?

Quote:

The earth does have a wobble but what you are proposing would defy the laws of physics as we know them.

Then perhaps we don't know the laws of physics as well as some scientists believe we do. If you glue a block of wood on a top, wouldn't the top's spin be altered because it would no longer be balanced on its axis of rotation?

How else can we explain the discovery of tropical fossils in Antarctica?

Quote:

Ignoring for a moment that the rotation helps to keep our orbit what it is lets assume we can keep the same orbit and spin the earth any direction we want.

If spin and orbit are inter-related, how could we alter one without also altering the other?

Quote:

The same amount of the earth's surface is always facing the sun give or take a small % for angular momentum bulging.

Assuming that the earth's tilt on its axis is not altered- which is the entire premise of pole shift. The earth likely hasn't always been tilted at its current angle.

Quote:

Hold a ball up to a light source. Let me know when you can get more of the ball to be lit by simply spinning it in a different direction.

What is this ball made of? If part of it is rock and part of it is water, and the part that receives the light is more rock than water, the ball will store more heat. Turn the ball around so that the region that gets light is mostly water and the ball won't store as much heat.

Yes, that is true. It's called the albedo effect but get back to me when you have evidence of the continents moving rapidly in the last 100 years.

Quote:

BTW: Shifting poles likely can take place extremely quickly and weather/climate conditions can be changed in very short order as evidenced by the discovery of flash-frozen mammoths in Siberia with undigested food in their mouths and stomachs.

LOL.. I didn't realize mammoths lived in a tropical environment. All that long hair must have been to keep them cool. Siberia like all northern climes can experience shifts in temperatures because of weather. It is not uncommon for temperature shifts of 20C and it has nothing to do with the poles shifting.

There is some speculation that back 440 million years ago, when the earth was 5-10 degrees Celsius colder than it is now while carbon-dioxide levels were 10 times higher,

flaja...

Quote:

There is some speculation that back 440 million years ago, when the earth was 5-10 degrees Celsius colder than it is now while carbon-dioxide levels were 10 times higher,

How is this possible if man wasnt on the planet to cause the CO2 levels to rise?

After all, isnt that whats causing GW now?

mysteryman wrote:

flaja...

Quote:

There is some speculation that back 440 million years ago, when the earth was 5-10 degrees Celsius colder than it is now while carbon-dioxide levels were 10 times higher,

How is this possible if man wasnt on the planet to cause the CO2 levels to rise?

After all, isnt that whats causing GW now?

Volcano's also spew out CO2 MM. 440 million years ago the earth was just a tad different than we see today.

But according to the GW fearmongers, man is the ONLY cause of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I can't be arsed to read all of this drivel . . . in response to Herr Flaja's first post, did anyone explain the concept of convection to him?

Moving the magnetic pole doesn't alter anything with the spin.

In order to claim it isn't true for all conditions you might want to provide an instance when it isn't true.

How could so many scientists miss that block of wood glued to the top of the earth?

The continents make up a rather small part of the overall mass of the earth.

The tallest mountains on earth are proportionally smaller than the defects found on the surface of a rubber ball. Water tends to fill in the spaces where the continents are not. If all the land mass was moved to the poles, angular momentum laws would still govern the spin of the earth.

The land masses sit on a molten core and move over time. The land presently in Antartica would have been at the equator at some point in earth's history.

We can't. That is what I was trying to tell you. Both the orbit and of the earth and its rotation are decaying over time. If the earth suddenly stopped spinning that energy would have to go somewhere and it would show up in the orbit.

Pole shift refers to the shifting of the magnetic poles.

The axis tilt of the earth can NOT change suddenly or dramatically without an outside force.

Nor to my knowledge has anyone ever scientifically shown that it would be substantially different than it is now. If you have evidence of this, I would love to see it.

Except the earth spins and all the surface area of the earth faces the sun at some point.

Even if you moved all the land areas to the pole you would still get sun on that land for 50% of the year.

Of course you haven't factored in that the sun was cooler 400 million years ago.

That would be the time frame of the present global warming.

LOL.. I didn't realize mammoths lived in a tropical environment. All that long hair must have been to keep them cool. Siberia like all northern climes can experience shifts in temperatures because of weather. It is not uncommon for temperature shifts of 20C and it has nothing to do with the poles shifting.

flaja...

Quote:

There is some speculation that back 440 million years ago, when the earth was 5-10 degrees Celsius colder than it is now while carbon-dioxide levels were 10 times higher,

How is this possible if man wasnt on the planet to cause the CO2 levels to rise?

After all, isnt that whats causing GW now?

If a lot of ice were to accumulate around the geographic poles the distribution of mass would be altered and the planet could role over on its side.

But loading the continents with ice would effectively make them heavier. Loading the polar regions with ice would do likewise. The net result would be altering the earth's balance as it spins on its axis and this would alter the earth's axial tilt and or its spin.

Who said anything about stopping the earth's spin? Altering the earth's spin would either speed it up or slow it down. If it slows down then the momentum, that is the energy caused by its spinning motion, would be transferred to the matter of the earth in the form of earthquakes and other natural disasters and such disasters have been recorded in the earth's myths, legends and written historical accounts.

Ice can accumulate over polar regions and over land masses during ice ages. This alters the distribution of mass on the earth and this can cause an imbalance which causes the earth to wobble which theoretically can alter the earth's axial tilt.

Because of the way the earth is tilted on its axis Florida is closer to the sun than New York is, but Florida is not as close to the sun as Cuba is. This means that the sunlight that Florida receives is more intense than what New York receives and what Cuba receives is more intense that what Florida receives. As a result Florida is hotter than New York while Cuba is hotter than Florida.

Setanta wrote:

I can't be arsed to read all of this drivel . . . in response to Herr Flaja's first post, did anyone explain the concept of convection to him?

Nope, not yet, I stopped reading when I realised that he thinks a magnetic pole shift means that the world tilted +/-90 degrees.

parados wrote:

Moving the magnetic pole doesn't alter anything with the spin.

Moving the magnetic poles has nothing to do with pole shift (although changing the earth's magnetic field may alter the amount of solar energy that reaches the earth thereby altering the earth's climate). Pole shift holds that a planet's geographic axis is not constant over time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_theory. If a lot of ice were to accumulate around the geographic poles the distribution of mass would be altered and the planet could role over on its side. If the earth were to roll over, Antarctica would move towards tropical latitudes and the current tropical regions would move towards the poles. Thus the earth would develop either a different axial tilt or a new axis altogether. Either way the earth's climate would be altered.

Quote:

In order to claim it isn't true for all conditions you might want to provide an instance when it isn't true.

That the laws of physics may not be true for all conditions as they are for known conditions is a theory. Observational proof is not needed for the theory to exist.

Quote:

How could so many scientists miss that block of wood glued to the top of the earth?

How could so many scientists have missed the fact that the earth orbits the sun and that the sun does not orbit the earth?

How could so many scientists have missed the fact that the human circulatory system is a closed system and that the heart merely pumps blood and does not make it?

How could so many scientists have missed the fact that the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1920 was caused by a virus, which could not be seen with the technology available to them? Many scientists of the day thought the flu was caused by Pfeiffer's bacillus which was found in the lungs of many victims when they died.

Just because something is true does not mean that science can easily find it.

Quote:

The continents make up a rather small part of the overall mass of the earth.

But loading the continents with ice would effectively make them heavier. Loading the polar regions with ice would do likewise. The net result would be altering the earth's balance as it spins on its axis and this would alter the earth's axial tilt and or its spin.

Quote:

The tallest mountains on earth are proportionally smaller than the defects found on the surface of a rubber ball. Water tends to fill in the spaces where the continents are not. If all the land mass was moved to the poles, angular momentum laws would still govern the spin of the earth.

But would the earth still be tilted at its current 23.5 degree angle?

Quote:

The land masses sit on a molten core and move over time. The land presently in Antartica would have been at the equator at some point in earth's history.

Antarctica would then show evidence that it had once existed in multiple climatic regions as it moved from place to place on the earth's surface relative to the poles. Has such evidence been found?

Quote:

We can't. That is what I was trying to tell you. Both the orbit and of the earth and its rotation are decaying over time. If the earth suddenly stopped spinning that energy would have to go somewhere and it would show up in the orbit.

Who said anything about stopping the earth's spin? Altering the earth's spin would either speed it up or slow it down. If it slows down then the momentum, that is the energy caused by its spinning motion, would be transferred to the matter of the earth in the form of earthquakes and other natural disasters and such disasters have been recorded in the earth's myths, legends and written historical accounts.

Quote:

Pole shift refers to the shifting of the magnetic poles.

No it does not. As I've already explained what you are thinking of is pole reversal. Pole shift is a different matter entirely.

Quote:

The axis tilt of the earth can NOT change suddenly or dramatically without an outside force.

Not really. Ice can accumulate over polar regions and over land masses during ice ages. This alters the distribution of mass on the earth and this can cause an imbalance which causes the earth to wobble which theoretically can alter the earth's axial tilt.

Quote:

Nor to my knowledge has anyone ever scientifically shown that it would be substantially different than it is now. If you have evidence of this, I would love to see it.

What would you accept as such proof?

Quote:

Except the earth spins and all the surface area of the earth faces the sun at some point.

This doesn't mean that all parts of the earth receive an identical amount of sunlight. Because of the way the earth is tilted on its axis Florida is closer to the sun than New York is, but Florida is not as close to the sun as Cuba is. This means that the sunlight that Florida receives is more intense than what New York receives and what Cuba receives is more intense that what Florida receives. As a result Florida is hotter than New York while Cuba is hotter than Florida.

Quote:

Even if you moved all the land areas to the pole you would still get sun on that land for 50% of the year.

But the sunlight received by this polar landmass wouldn't be as intense as that which reaches the tropical regions. The land would receive less sunlight, but would store more of what it receives while the water in the tropical regions would receive more sunlight but wouldn't store as much of it. Either way altering the distribution of mass over the earth's surface would alter the earth's climate.

Quote:

Of course you haven't factored in that the sun was cooler 400 million years ago.

What did humans do to cause this? If the cold climate 440 million years ago was due to a colder sun, why can the hot climate today not be caused by a hotter sun? If the earth is getting hotter because the sun is hotter, there isn't a whole lot humans can do about it- contrary to leftist global warming dogma.

Quote:

That would be the time frame of the present global warming.

So? If you are going to talk about climate change, how can you understand the last 100 years if you don't make an effort to consider the last 4.5 billion years?

maporsche wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

flaja...

Quote:

There is some speculation that back 440 million years ago, when the earth was 5-10 degrees Celsius colder than it is now while carbon-dioxide levels were 10 times higher,

How is this possible if man wasnt on the planet to cause the CO2 levels to rise?

After all, isnt that whats causing GW now?

Volcano's also spew out CO2 MM. 440 million years ago the earth was just a tad different than we see today.

I agree, and Mt Saint Helens spewed out more CO2 by itself then man has in the entire history of man.
Also, Mt Pinatubo in the Phillipines, and all of the other active volcanoes.
Man accounts for very little of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

But according to the GW fearmongers, man is the ONLY cause of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Setanta wrote:

I can't be arsed to read all of this drivel . . . in response to Herr Flaja's first post, did anyone explain the concept of convection to him?

Nope, not yet, I stopped reading when I realised that he thinks a magnetic pole shift means that the world tilted +/-90 degrees.