Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

parados wrote:

The equator area of the globe bulges because of the centrifigul force but gravity is stronger. Even if the "wobble" causes the earth's crust to slip around, water is still a fluid and the increase in sea level in one place will be offset by decrease somewhere else unless the amount of water increases.

Not exactly the same thing but apropos centrifugal force, the Earth revolution period is slowing about 2 ms every day. If the sea is rising (either by thermosteric effect, or by melting of Greenland & Antarctica ice shelves) as stated by AGWers, then, the equator must be swelling and the slowing must be accelerating (red dotted line). But it is not accelerating, it is decelerating (green line) !

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:

The equator area of the globe bulges because of the centrifigul force but gravity is stronger. Even if the "wobble" causes the earth's crust to slip around, water is still a fluid and the increase in sea level in one place will be offset by decrease somewhere else unless the amount of water increases.

Not exactly the same thing but apropos centrifugal force, the Earth revolution period is slowing about 2 ms every day. If the sea is rising (either by thermosteric effect, or by melting of Greenland & Antarctica ice shelves) as stated by AGWers, then, the equator must be swelling and the slowing must be accelerating (red dotted line). But it is not accelerating, it is decelerating (green line) !

Interesting statement about how sure you are that rising sea levels MUST cause deceleration.

Can you show me your modeling for that? Can you show me how your modeling in no way resembles the modeling for climate change?

Nice try ican. Now tell us how the wobble affects the angular momentum. :wink: Then you can explain how dark and light affect it too.

By the way, in case you had problems reading the graph miniTax posted, the earth is slowing down.

parados wrote:

Nice try ican. Now tell us how the wobble affects the angular momentum. :wink: Then you can explain how dark and light affect it too.

By the way, in case you had problems reading the graph miniTax posted, the earth is slowing down.

MiniTaxe's graph shows that the rate of deceleration of the earth's rate of spin is actually decreasing, when its rate of deceleration should actually be increasing if the sea level at the equator were actually increasing.

The wobble of the earth's spin axis makes both the location of the earth's equator wobble and the direction of the vector of the earth's angular momentum wobble.

The wobble of light and dark make both the depth of sea level at the equator wobble and the magnitude of the vector of the earth's angular momentum wobble.

Do you feel wobbly? :wink:

Interesting statement about how sure you are that rising sea levels MUST cause deceleration.

Can you show me your modeling for that? Can you show me how your modeling in no way resembles the modeling for climate change?

parados wrote:

Interesting statement about how sure you are that rising sea levels MUST cause deceleration.

Can you show me your modeling for that? Can you show me how your modeling in no way resembles the modeling for climate change?

The influence of sea level change on earth's rate of rotation is no new modelling, see for example this google search. And the absence of global sea level rise evidenced by the earth's rotation speed has been addressed by Morner, see this paper for all relevant peer-reviewed papers : "Estimating future sea level changes from past records, Nils-Axel Morner, Global and Planetary Change, May 2003."

This kind of modelling can't be worse than modelling of oceans acidification since it's based on past observations of the earth rotation speed (eg based on tidal tables), astronomical parameters and precision timing.

You were ready to accept the "science" of ocean acidification without question, even if it's over simplistic and doesn't take into account biochemical reactions, so I'm sure you won't find it hard to accept that sea level change can be modelled through earth rotational speed. Unless, you don't accept it because you don't like the results

...
The only thing wobbling is your attempt to claim you have a valid model that is somehow better than the modeling done for global warming. I can point to a multitude of things you have not included in your model about how fast the earth should decelerate. Don't you think that failure to include something in the model invalidates the projection? Or is your standard really not a standard at all?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

149.

I guess "what's up with that" is you are using a number that is manufactured from other sources instead of the actual numbers from MSU site.

MSU numbers show May 1979 to be -.0165, not the -.017 your source uses. MSU also hasn't released May of 2008 yet.

Less irradiance but almost identical temperature. What's up with that, okie? Maybe you can explain it to us.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

150.
Swedish Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate," Karlen wrote to EPW regarding the September 22, 2007 AP article predicting dire sea level rise. "Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate," Karlen explained. "I have used the NASA temperature data for a study of several major areas. As far as I can see the IPCC "Global Temperature" is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s," Karlen wrote. "The latest estimates of sea level rise are 1.31 mm/year. With this water level increase it will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by 1 m if not conditions change before that (very likely). Society will look very different at that time," he added.

151.
Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founding member who left the environmental organization because he believed it had become too radical, rejected climate alarmism and lamented the efforts to silence climate skeptics. "It appears to be the policy of the [UK] Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind or repression seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a modern, respected scientific body," Moore, the chief scientist for Greenspirit, wrote in a September 21, 2006 letter to the Royal Society accusing it of attempting to silence skeptics. "I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is a hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way," Moore wrote.

That's interesting minitax

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008

The graph ends at 2008.3 which is not through May no matter how you try to adjust the graph.

There is a time lag of months to years even decades (see for example Shaviv for an estimation of time constants) between a decrease in sun activity and Earth climate because of the huge buffer effect of oceans: that's why the summer solstice is in 2 days but the hottest months are not in June but July and August in the NH.
And yes, the Earth is continuously cooling, there is a very simple proxy for this: the more the cooling, the more hysterical AGWers become