Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho

[ClimateSanity]

If you are still saying that the CO2 triggers the warming, then what are you objecting to?

No. I have no idea how you read that from my words.

The effusive volcanism reduced the ozone layers ability to shield out high energy ultra violet rays. These days heated the oceans. The oceans heated the atmosphere.

Co2 only comes into the picture as a release from volcanism and a release from hot oceans.

 

[Stripe]

You said that the movement had to be towards the core to speed up the rotation as observed, but that is wrong. A movement across the surface towards the poles (i.e. the axis or rotation) would do the same, without any shrinking.

Oh, you're using this nonsense to continue an argument to ignore the point now?

We'll take this as tacit agreement that my idea is valid. A shrinking Earth is a factor in sea-level rise. :up:

 

[Alate_One]

Depends.Not really. First of all, it's likely not as bad as you make it out to be.

Why do you say that?

Have you looked at the area and percentage involved?

CO2 is continuing to rise, ocean pH is continuing to drop and we're already getting massive coral die offs. You expect it to magically get better? Why?

And remember, you've swept under the rug what is potentially a huge contributor to sea-level rise that has nothing to do with temperatures or carbon.

You mean the idea that you made up and provided no evidence to support? Not worth discussing until you provide evidence. I've provided plenty. You're dancing around addressing it.

 

[gcthomas]

No. I have no idea how you read that from my words.

The effusive volcanism reduced the ozone layers ability to shield out high energy ultra violet rays. These days heated the oceans. The oceans heated the atmosphere.

Co2 only comes into the picture as a release from volcanism and a release from hot oceans.

The atmosphere blocks about 100 watts per square metre of ocean. Allowing that through in its entirety would increase the power of the sunlight by about seven percent. But this wouldn't result in warming the atmosphere, because the currently blocked UV is absorbed by the atmosphere, warming it up.

So, if you are saying that instead of warming the atmosphere the UV is slightly warming the ocean, while much of the UV will be reflected by the water back into space, then none of your expected results can happen. The ocean will not warm appreciably on an extra 100 W/m2, and the atmosphere will cool down.

 

[rexlunae]

Sure.

However, I've yet to see anything that shows atmospheric carbon is increasing, Alate's pretty graphs aside.

I doubt that we even have the capacity to measure such a thing with any level of confidence.

Well, we do measure it pretty routinely. Do you doubt that we can accurately measure the concentration? Because we can.

Now, see, this is where it's important we begin to understand each other's different ideas. You cannot expect me to just buy into your story of "no animals" because you want to justify the fact that carbon was once not all locked up in the rocks.

Ok, so what's your idea then? Animals that breathe methane?

 

[rexlunae]

The ocean heats the atmosphere , not the other way around.

That's kinda true on a some pedantic level, but also irrelevant. The sun warms the planet, including the oceans, and the oceans warm the air. And the atmosphere traps and reflects back some amount of the heat as it escapes into space.

Likewise, if you put a blanket on your body, you could say your body warms the blanket, not the other way around. But putting on the blanket still warms your body, because it allows less of your body's warmth to escape.

 

[rexlunae]

The Earth's rate of rotation increases with seismicity.

Not necessarily. It depends on the net effect of the seismic activity. You're correct that if it distributes mass toward the axis of rotation, it would increase the speed of that rotation. But sometimes seismicity lifts mountains out of the sea floor, which would have the opposite effect. Also, some areas of the Earth are expanding due to elastic rebound from the last ice age.

That said, you're not wrong that the planet is shrinking. However, it's not shrinking nearly fast enough to account for the millimeters-per-year of sea level rise that we're seeing.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html

 

[rexlunae]

Nope. Seismicity is a gravity-driven effect; this has nothing to do with the Earth's rotation.

Also, it's confusing how you think increased rotational forces would drive mass toward the axis.

Movement of mass toward or away from the axis of rotation, not the core, changes the speed of rotation. Yes, gravity pulls toward the core, which in many cases is also toward the axis of rotation, but there is a distinction. And seismicity isn't always gravity-driven.

 

[Stripe]

Why do you say that?

I said two things. I said "depends" because coral formation is not necessarily a slow process, which plays into the reason I would say things aren't as dire as you suggest.

Have you looked at the area and percentage involved?

Have you considered all the factors involved?

CO2 is continuing to rise, ocean pH is continuing to drop and we're already getting massive coral die offs. You expect it to magically get better? Why?

Try to stick with what I say rather than making things up for me to say.

Sea level is rising because the Earth is shrinking, remember?

You seem desperate not to talk about the things I bring to the table in favor of posting more pretty pictures.

You mean the idea that you made up and provided no evidence to support? Not worth discussing until you provide evidence.

As I said, I did better than evidence by providing physical necessity.

 

[Stripe]

Well, we do measure it pretty routinely.

No, you don't.

Ok, so what's your idea then?

Darwinists hate reading.

Not necessarily.

Actually, yes. Necessarily.

It depends on the net effect of the seismic activity.

:AMR:

You're correct that if it distributes mass toward the axis of rotation, it would increase the speed of that rotation.

Mass is not moved toward the axis of rotation. It is moved toward the core. A fine distinction, perhaps, but important conceptually.

Sometimes seismicity lifts mountains out of the sea floor, which would have the opposite effect.

You're not very good at English, are you?

Also, some areas of the Earth are expanding due to elastic rebound from the last ice age.

And you expect that to affect sea level? :AMR:

That said, you're not wrong that the planet is shrinking. However, it's not shrinking nearly fast enough to account for the millimeters-per-year of sea level rise that we're seeing.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html

:darwinsm:

Last time we had this discussion, you morons pulled this article out as if its useless declaration that there is "no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth" to try and say I was wrong about a shrinking globe. Now you think it backs me up!?

It does neither. Learn to read. NASA has nothing to say on this matter that I've seen.

Movement of mass toward or away from the axis of rotation, not the core, changes the speed of rotation. Yes, gravity pulls toward the core, which in many cases is also toward the axis of rotation, but there is a distinction. And seismicity isn't always gravity-driven.

Seismicity is always gravity driven. Mass is drawn toward the core, not the axis.

These are key concepts.

 

[gcthomas]

Seismicity is always gravity driven. Mass is drawn toward the core, not the axis.

These are key concepts.

If these are your key concepts then your hypothesis is in real trouble even before the absence any evidence is brought in.

You should be aware that the Earth is chock-a-block full with stuff, so gravity will have a hard time fitting in much else, whether masses are drawn to it or not.

(You know that gravity can drive things up as well as down, of course. Flames go up because of gravity, and boats float because of gravity, and the crust floats up after glaciers retreat because of gravity. And convection currents carry plates around the world's surface because of gravity. And so on. Isn't real Physics great stuff?)

 

[ClimateSanity]

Why do you say that?

Have you looked at the area and percentage involved?

CO2 is continuing to rise, ocean pH is continuing to drop and we're already getting massive coral die offs. You expect it to magically get better? Why?



You mean the idea that you made up and provided no evidence to support? Not worth discussing until you provide evidence. I've provided plenty. You're dancing around addressing it.

Is the great barrier reef the only one in the world? Are there any reefs growing in size?

The great barrier reef is dying due to bleaching. This is due to high ocean temperatures. There is no evidence this is from greenhouse gases.

Acidification may not be causing it either which the following study shows.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/...ht-spots-among-the-worlds-coral-reefs/487118/

 

[ClimateSanity]

Gcthomas said" The atmosphere blocks about 100 watts per square metre of ocean. Allowing that through in its entirety would increase the power of the sunlight by about seven percent. But this wouldn't result in warming the atmosphere, because the currently blocked UV is absorbed by the atmosphere, warming it up.".

The radiative forcing from a doubling of co2 is said to be 3.7 w/m2. This is supposed to be the cause of 20th century warming. Let's say there was anincrease in ultraviolet B radiation reaching the ocean of say 7 percent since 1950. Are you saying an extra 7 watts per square meter reaching the ocean cannot warm it but 3.7 w/m2 of co2 forcing since 1950 can?

 

[ClimateSanity]

So, if you are saying that instead of warming the atmosphere the UV is slightly warming the ocean, while much of the UV will be reflected by the water back into space, then none of your expected results can happen. The ocean will not warm appreciably on an extra 100 W/m2, and the atmosphere will cool down..... gcthomas.

The extra UVB radiation heats the ocean and the atmosphere just like regular light does. The majority of sunlight is not absorbed by the atmosphere before reaching the surface. How much sunlight is reflected by the ocean? I would say the majority is absorbed.

The ocean will not warm with an extra 100 w/m2 but it will with an extra 3.7 w/m2?????

You want to reconsider?

 

[Alate_One]

Sea level is rising because the Earth is shrinking, remember?

Remember we were also talking about dying sea life? But you dropped that like a hot potato when you were presented with evidence. You've failed to present any evidence that "earth shrinkage" has anything to do with rising sea levels.

Scientific evidence points to thermal expansion and land ice melting. More the former than the latter at current.

You seem desperate not to talk about the things I bring to the table in favor of posting more pretty pictures.

No, you're desperate to avoid discussing *evidence* in favor of your evidence-free ideas.

As I said, I did better than evidence by providing physical necessity.

You didn't provide anything other than your own assertions. Evidence, or stop talking.

BTW, evidence says you're wrong. So much for your "physical necessity". :rotfl:

 

[rexlunae]

No, you don't.

Yes. We do.

Actually, yes. Necessarily.

How so? Feel free to be specific.

Mass is not moved toward the axis of rotation. It is moved toward the core. A fine distinction, perhaps, but important conceptually.

We're talking about two different but related phenomena. Gravitation, which pulls toward the barycenter (a point), and small changes in the moment of inertia of the Earth (i.e. mass moving toward or away from the axis of rotation, a centroidal line). This is an especially important distinction because gravity is attempting to make the planet more perfectly spherical, which at times, can draw mass away from the axis of rotation. For example, the poles are covered in ice, and they are closer to the axis of rotation of the planet than the equator is, without being a lot further from the center of mass. So if the ice caps were to melt, and release their mass into the oceans, gravity would redistribute that away from the poles, out toward the equator, which could slow the planet's rotation.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/glacial-melt-slowing-of-earths-rotation-19843

You're not very good at English, are you?

Specifically?

And you expect that to affect sea level? :AMR:

Not much. But just as much as any other expansion or contraction of the planet would.

Last time we had this discussion, you morons pulled this article out as if its useless declaration that there is "no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth" to try and say I was wrong about a shrinking globe. Now you think it backs me up!?

It does neither. Learn to read. NASA has nothing to say on this matter that I've seen.

That wasn't the point. The point was that any change that might be occurring is too small to account for the observed sea level rise. Yes, sometimes the planet shrinks. Sometimes, it grows. Sometimes, it does both. But in all cases during the recent history of the Earth, these changes are very small. Too small to explain the sea level rise.

Seismicity is always gravity driven.

False. Earthquakes are driven mostly by plate tectonics, which are driven mostly by currents in the mantle.

Mass is drawn toward the core, not the axis.

No dispute about which direction gravity is pulling. But you seem not to be grasping the distinction between that, and the axis of rotation which is relevant to the angular velocity.

 

[Stripe]

If these are your key concepts then your hypothesis is in real trouble even before the absence any evidence is brought in.

But you're not going to explain how. You're just going to post nonsense and hope the topic changes.

You should be aware that the Earth is chock-a-block full with stuff, so gravity will have a hard time fitting in much else, whether masses are drawn to it or not.

:darwinsm:

You should have given up back at the first time you exposed your ignorance.

Rock at pressure contracts when melted. There's plenty of space. In fact, there's a real chance that the Earth is on a runaway course toward melting entirely.

(You know that gravity can drive things up as well as down, of course. Flames go up because of gravity, and boats float because of gravity, and the crust floats up after glaciers retreat because of gravity. And convection currents carry plates around the world's surface because of gravity. And so on. Isn't real Physics great stuff?)

Seriously? Are you Darwinists all going to refuse to engage rationally?

Remember we were also talking about dying sea life?

Yep. Because you decided the best response to my input was to change the subject.

You've failed to present any evidence that "earth shrinkage" has anything to do with rising sea levels.

:darwinsm:

Logic is beyond you lot, isn't it? If you accept my hypothesis, how could sea level not be affected? If you reject my hypothesis, show us how it cannot be true; don't wail about evidence when you have no intention of ever considering it.

Scientific evidence points to thermal expansion and land ice melting. More the former than the latter at current.

Thermal expansion of what?

No, you're desperate to avoid discussing *evidence* in favor of your evidence-free ideas.

Physical necessity, remember? You seriously don't have a clue, do you? When someone tells you apples fall down, do you demand evidence?

You didn't provide anything other than your own assertions. Evidence, or stop talking.

Nope. I have something better than evidence. I have fact. Physical necessity. That the Earth's rotation speed increases necessitates a movement of mass toward the core.

BTW, evidence says you're wrong. So much for your "physical necessity".

:rotfl:
:darwinsm:
:rotfl:

Oh, boy are you lot desperate:

Res: That said, you're not wrong that the planet is shrinking. *Provides NASA link.* Stripe: Last time we had this discussion, you morons pulled this article out as if its useless declaration that there is "no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth" to try and say I was wrong about a shrinking globe. Now you think it backs me up!? It does neither. Learn to read. NASA has nothing to say on this matter that I've seen. A late one: BTW, evidence says you're wrong. *provides same NASA link.*

This is the part where you slink away and hide for a while. :thumb:

Yes. We do.

Nope. Else you would declare it and there wouldn't be a serious debate.

How so?

I've been through this.

We're talking about two different but related phenomena.

Nope. you're trying to talk about something else, because you're determined that nothing I say can be left unchallenged.

Rotational forces have nothing to do with the Earth shrinking.

Specifically?

Specifically when I said "generally."

And uplift is only a surface phenomenon, which is irrelevant compared with what is happening within the Earth.

Not much. But just as much as any other expansion or contraction of the planet would.

That's because you don't know what is going on.

That wasn't the point. The point was that any change that might be occurring is too small to account for the observed sea level rise.

You don't have observed global sea level rise. And why did you post the link if it has nothing to say about the Earth shrinking?

Sometimes, it grows.

Nope. Never.

Too small to explain the sea level rise.

Because you say so? You do not even understand what is going on, which is demonstrated by your insistence on talking about rotation. How on Earth have you come to the conclusion that I must be wrong when you've spent exactly no time thinking things through?

False. Earthquakes are driven mostly by plate tectonics, which are driven mostly by currents in the mantle.

The evidence says otherwise. And there is no physical process that justifies plate tectonics.

No dispute about which direction gravity is pulling. But you seem not to be grasping the distinction between that, and the axis of rotation which is relevant to the angular velocity.

The gravity settling is what puts more mass nearer the axis of rotation. that is not the way I phrase it because gravity is putting mass nearer the core.

 

[gcthomas]

So, if you are saying that instead of warming the atmosphere the UV is slightly warming the ocean, while much of the UV will be reflected by the water back into space, then none of your expected results can happen. The ocean will not warm appreciably on an extra 100 W/m2, and the atmosphere will cool down..... gcthomas.

The extra UVB radiation heats the ocean and the atmosphere just like regular light does. The majority of sunlight is not absorbed by the atmosphere before reaching the surface. How much sunlight is reflected by the ocean? I would say the majority is absorbed.

The ocean will not warm with an extra 100 w/m2 but it will with an extra 3.7 w/m2?????

You want to reconsider?

You seem to be saying that depleting the ozone layer (by the measured 4 or 5%) will transfer the light that would have heated the atmosphere to the ocean, which in turn will transfer some of this heat to the atmosphere. And by 'some' I mean a tiny amount. Each cubic metre of water needs 4000 times as much energy as air to warm up by a degree, so very little will make it back to the air.

How will this cause more heating of the atmosphere? Since not all the energy will be passed to the atmosphere then the net effect of this would be to cool the atmosphere.

Have you ever studied thermodynamics at any level, or do you get all this from blogs?

 

[rexlunae]

And why did you post the link if it has nothing to say about the Earth shrinking?

I posted the link to show that while there may be some amount of shrinking, it was far to small (0.1 mm/year) to account for the observed sea level rise of 3mm/year.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html

Because you say so?

I think 0.1 is a lot smaller than 3. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[rexlunae]

Nope. Else you would declare it and there wouldn't be a serious debate.

I can't really post my personal experiences with it, because I haven't figured out how to embed an experience in a forum post. There are public repositories of such data, however, some of the most well-known having already been posted here for you by others.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+carbon+dioxide+measurements

Nope. you're trying to talk about something else, because you're determined that nothing I say can be left unchallenged.

If you said something that was right, I wouldn't challenge it.

Rotational forces have nothing to do with the Earth shrinking.

Then what were you on about?

The Earth's rate of rotation increases with seismicity. The only reasonable way to make sense of that is to assume mass is being redistributed more toward the core.

This process would lead generally to rising seas.

If you weren't trying to say that changes in the planet's moment of inertia change its speed of rotation, what were you getting at?

And uplift is only a surface phenomenon, which is irrelevant to what is happening within the Earth.

It doesn't matter if it's within the Earth or on the surface.

Nope. Never.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

The evidence says otherwise. And there is no physical process that justifies plate tectonics.

In other words, plate tectonics is another field of science that you don't buy into, and have some alternative for.

The gravity settling is what puts more mass nearer the axis of rotation. that is not the way I phrase it because gravity is putting mass nearer the core.

Ok. But, importantly, gravity settling mass toward the center of mass can actually move it away from the axis. It is an important distinction.