Earths Expansion and Declining Seas

[Tonington]

I can see that the expansion would not be uniform; different levels of friction between tectonic plates, southern hemisphere cooling as the northern hemisphere warms, vice versa, and all that. Besides Antarctica having a larger load resting on it than the Arctic lands. Actually the Atlantic sea level is about 8" higher than the Pacific, too. That's a bit of a load difference, too.

Yup. It's a big number, too.
6.0221415 × 10 ^ 23

Well, changes from mantle and ice loading have already been accounted for. They actually contribute to a reduction in the amount of local sea level rise.

The rising sea level is part of eustatic, isostatic and steric changes. Those would be changes due to addition of more water, tectonic changes, and thermal expansion/salinity changes respectively. We already have a figure for how much sea levels are rising. We can estimate volume of water. Changes from tectonic or glacial rebound don't contribute to a change in volume of the oceans. So if we have more ice melting, and more warming of the water, then we will get a change in volume of the global oceans.

How DB and the others in here think that local sea level changes will disprove global warming is beyond me. Making the atmosphere more opaque to radiation isn't going to stop dynamic shifting of materials around islands, nor will it stop tectonic forces from forcing land up...

But it's more spaghetti they can throw against the wall...

 

[Kreskin]

I can see that the expansion would not be uniform; different levels of friction between tectonic plates, southern hemisphere cooling as the northern hemisphere warms, vice versa, and all that. Besides Antarctica having a larger load resting on it than the Arctic lands. Actually the Atlantic sea level is about 8" higher than the Pacific, too. That's a bit of a load difference, too.

Yup. It's a big number, too.
6.0221415 × 10 ^ 23

Could I have 5.86014 x 8 ^ 17 ?

It isn't as big but I promise to water it and walk it every day.

 

[MHz]

How DB and the others in here think that local sea level changes will disprove global warming is beyond me. Making the atmosphere more opaque to radiation isn't going to stop dynamic shifting of materials around islands, nor will it stop tectonic forces from forcing land up...

I was under the impression that the global warming question was more about if man can affect the changes than if there have been warmer and cooler periods in our very lonf history. From when the ice-age started to melt the oceans have risen about 130M (if that is the correct number). What would have kicked that into motion? I have read that all the melting could have happened in about 40,000 years, over by about 10,000 years ago.

6.0221415 × 10 ^ 23

Wow, same as my IQ lol

 

[Johnny Utah]

It's actually an interesting theory but, what does Al Gore have to say?

 

[petros]

Quoting weaselwords
If the earth doesn't breathe where does naturally carbonated water such as "Perrier" come from?

France!

 

[MHz]

It's actually an interesting theory but, what does Al Gore have to say?

Anything his handlers tell him if they hand him a cheque at the same time.

 

[Tonington]

I was under the impression that the global warming question was more about if man can affect the changes than if there have been warmer and cooler periods in our very lonf history.

The question is not if, but how and in what ways. Yes, previous warm and cool periods are granted. That just gives us evidence that the climate has sensitivity.

As to what causes the onset of glacials/interglacials, this is a good primer:
6.4 Glacial-Interglacial Variability and Dynamics - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

 

[MHz]

I'm not trying to hide, the document is rather complex to get on the first read. Give me a few days and even then I might just say, "Okay ... and that means???"

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Just wait, it gets even more complex than that. There's the solar system's position in the galaxy, for instance, it oscillates up and down through the galaxy's central plane and is exposed to more extra-galactic irradiation when it's on one side, which it's currently heading for.

 

[MHz]

Just wait, it gets even more complex than that. There's the solar system's position in the galaxy, for instance, it oscillates up and down through the galaxy's central plane and is exposed to more extra-galactic irradiation when it's on one side, which it's currently heading for.

Is there going to be a bright flash when we cross through the 'center' in Dec of 2012?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Is there going to be a bright flash when we cross through the 'center' in Dec of 2012?

No. That 2012 business is crap.

 

[darkbeaver]

How DB and the others in here think that local sea level changes will disprove global warming is beyond me. Making the atmosphere more opaque to radiation isn't going to stop dynamic shifting of materials around islands, nor will it stop tectonic forces from forcing land up...

But it's more spaghetti they can throw against the wall...

In my opinion my opinion is far less exotic than yours on this topic. How in hell can we have local volumn changes in the oceans? I assume that a similar phenomena cannot happen in the next triple whiskey you have, see if in fact the whiskey inundates one ice cube only. I don't know that for a fact, I'm just assuming it wouldn't. It would be useful to know where water comes from it would also be useful to understand its generation, keeping in mind that all the required raw materials are terrestrial or more correctly, already here on the work site and there is no actual need for its delivery to this planet, that has always been and is still one great big assumption. Don't even mention delivery by comets because that's been decisively put to rest.

The question is not if, but how and in what ways. Yes, previous warm and cool periods are granted. That just gives us evidence that the climate has sensitivity.

As to what causes the onset of glacials/interglacials, this is a good primer:
6.4 Glacial-Interglacial Variability and Dynamics - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

That paper is crap Tonnington, it avoids like the plaque solar variability and its cause variable galactic incoming electric currents, the real source of the sun power. So the paper, despite your promise of being a good primer is nothing but support for solar mythology.

Precisely this question was raised by the electrical engineer Ralph Juergens in 1972:

Essential to the received [thermonuclear sun] theory is the conviction that inside the sun is a steep temperature gradient, falling toward the photosphere, along which the internal energy flows outward. If we stack this internal temperature gradient against the observed temperature gradient in the solar atmosphere, which falls steeply inward, toward the photosphere, we find we have diagrammed a physical absurdity: The two gradients produce a trough at the photosphere, which implies that thermal energy should collect and become stuck there until it raises the temperature and eliminates the trough. That this does not occur seems to bother no one.
- Ralph E. Juergens.​

Dissecting Bad Models -
Solar Temperature Gradient Paradox

Dissecting Bad Models - Solar Temperature Gradient Paradox

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That paper is crap Tonnington, it avoids like the plaque solar variability and its cause variable galactic incoming electric currents, the real source of the sun power.

Where are the magnetic fields that should accompany those currents? I've shown you the calculations, currents carrying enough energy to account for the sun's energy output would generate magnetic fields that'd overpower the earth's by several orders of magnitude. Compasses not working would be the least of their effects. You electric cosmos people should learn to DO physics instead of just talking about it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Magnetic Breaches
In 1973, the U.S. Navy satellite Triad flew through this electrically charged layer. The onboard magnetometer found two electric currents in gigantic sheets, each carrying a million amperes or more, one descending on the auroral zone's morning side and one ascending on the evening side. Since Birkeland's research had predicted the currents that link Earth with space they were called Birkeland current

According to the scientists from THEMIS, the "breach" started when magnetic fields from the solar wind wrapped around the magnetosphere and cracked it open. The "cracking" was induced by "magnetic reconnection."

Space physicist Wenhui Li from the University of New Hampshire was quoted as saying: "The opening was huge—four times wider than Earth itself."

Another New Hampshire researcher, Jimmy Raeder said: "10^27 particles per second were flowing into the magnetosphere—that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros. This kind of influx is an order of magnitude greater than what we thought was possible."

Physical processes require an energy input that then changes from one form to another. Consensus views also suggest that this holds true for geomagnetic substorms. It is no accident, according to scientists, that they take place when the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) slants to the South. The southern orientation means faster "reconnection" between interplanetary and terrestrial field lines, initiating rapid release of magnetic fields and plasma from Earth's sunlit side.

How this energy is released, as well as what starts the process, are still controversial subjects. Energy in nature cannot be destroyed, as the conservation of energy law states, it changes from one form to another. When electricity powers a motor, it is converted to kinetic energy. When friction stops motion, its kinetic energy converts to heat. Magnetic energy is also thought to reappear in different forms. Some becomes heat, increasing the velocity of plasma ions and electrons. Some of the energy ends up driving electric currents in a circuit linking the plasma sheet with Earth.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Interesting, but not relevant to the question. The sun emits about 63 million watts per square meter, the energy in a current of a million amperes is peanuts on that scale.

 

[MHz]

Wow, same as my IQ lol

6.0221415 × 10 ^ 23 apparently is not my real IQ, I have been 'informed' via prayer that this was Christ's IQ at the earliest stages of His interaction with man.
Just setting the record straight for all those of you who thought 'Wow, ..."

Does the thermal efficiency of snow/ice contribute to the factors that are involved in the rate at which the earth can shed internal heat? Is it slower/faster at the height of the various ice-ages?

 

[YukonJack]

Did not the oracle of all wisdom, the Nobel Prize and Oscar winner, Al Gore declared that a whole bunch of land will be lost and under water, due to sea levels rising, due to global warming?

So, I guess climate change/global warming packs a double whammy: it causes losing land by expanding and rising oceans and it also causes more land by shrinking and reducing oceans/sea levels.

Someone please advise me where I should move to in order to take advantage of or, conversely, escape from this calamity??

 

[darkbeaver]

Interesting, but not relevant to the question. The sun emits about 63 million watts per square meter, the energy in a current of a million amperes is peanuts on that scale.

The double layer of the observable plasma sheaths don't impress you eh.

You have no solar fusion mechanism and you discount the electric model. You are adrift in a little boat with only faith to accompany you now my friend. So, will you want the full 63 million watts per meter here on earth before you'll concede the simple observable fact of the electric sun? You're arguing against the observed physics as if it did not exist. You can't do that with mountains and you can't do it with the metered incoming current.

 

[AnnaG]

It's a liquid so pressures are somewhat equal already. The mantle also has convection currents, that is related to heat, the core must be hotter than the area just under the crust because there are rising currents. odds are those zones also put more pressure on the crust and that is why certain parts are expanding.

Well then pressures are not all that equal if there are currents.

I agree that the crust has gotten thicker over time and it would ride higher but nobody would notice as the atmosphere also rises, sideways motion would be the most noticeable change and that means wider Oceans in our case as the 'new' land mass is under water and the only gain in area of dry land would be from a receding sea.

So Earth's velocity at the equator should be quite a bit faster than it used to be because as it grows, centrifugal force makes the planet flatter at the poles and widens the diameter at the equator. Actually, the velocity goes up and down.

Well, changes from mantle and ice loading have already been accounted for. They actually contribute to a reduction in the amount of local sea level rise.

The rising sea level is part of eustatic, isostatic and steric changes. Those would be changes due to addition of more water, tectonic changes, and thermal expansion/salinity changes respectively. We already have a figure for how much sea levels are rising. We can estimate volume of water. Changes from tectonic or glacial rebound don't contribute to a change in volume of the oceans. So if we have more ice melting, and more warming of the water, then we will get a change in volume of the global oceans.

How DB and the others in here think that local sea level changes will disprove global warming is beyond me. Making the atmosphere more opaque to radiation isn't going to stop dynamic shifting of materials around islands, nor will it stop tectonic forces from forcing land up...

But it's more spaghetti they can throw against the wall...

Oh I agree. I was just saying that Earth's parts do not move uniformly.

I was under the impression that the global warming question was more about if man can affect the changes than if there have been warmer and cooler periods in our very lonf history. From when the ice-age started to melt the oceans have risen about 130M (if that is the correct number). What would have kicked that into motion? I have read that all the melting could have happened in about 40,000 years, over by about 10,000 years ago.


Wow, same as my IQ lol

On a googolian scale that's below average.

The double layer of the observable plasma sheaths don't impress you eh.

You have no solar fusion mechanism and you discount the electric model. You are adrift in a little boat with only faith to accompany you now my friend. So, will you want the full 63 million watts per meter here on earth before you'll concede the simple observable fact of the electric sun? You're arguing against the observed physics as if it did not exist. You can't do that with mountains and you can't do it with the metered incoming current.

I didn't think you could answer the question or refute the data.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... the simple observable fact of the electric sun? You're arguing against the observed physics as if it did not exist.

What doesn't impress me is your understanding of elementary physics and your tendency to make dogmatic pronouncements that are simply not true. If you actually work through the physics of the electric sun, modeling it either as a resistor or a capacitor (and I've given you links in the past to a guy who does so), you'll find that it predicts significant effects that are not observed. The simple observable facts are not consistent with an electric sun.