Page 8 of 8

Re: Global warming

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:13 pm
by Matt Flynn

Re: Global warming

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:56 pm
by Matt Flynn
Coral reefs fish ok after bleaching ... ... 122441.htm

Re: Global warming

Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:59 am
by Matt Flynn
One here for you Ron as you believed the sun had influence. Despite heat records falling the sun is in a low-output phase ... ... ll-Warming

CO2 was up 3ppm on the last annual count, despite all the political talk about lowering emissions.

Methane is up too, apparently it is coming from the tropics.

But it is still a good time to be alive. Reasons to be cheerful:

*We don't have to fight our neighbours with hatchet and club (usually)
*Tooth extraction doesn't hurt
*We've still got KFC and McDonalds on tap
*The internet
*Barra fishery is still healthy

:D :D :D

Re: Global warming

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:42 pm
by Matt Flynn
Kids are making themselves heard, their skin is in the game, literally ... ... 09e4c70b03

Re: Global warming

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:55 am
by ronje
Just saw this Matt.

What you're depicting here is the 11 year sunspot cycle dealing with UV radiation. That is wholly and solely caused by variations on the surface of the SUN itself. Nothing to do with earth affecting the amount of radiation generated by the sun.

Those solar belts of radiation flares wax and wane over an 11 year cycle. They are simply belts of electromagnetic radiation and as they envelop the earth and keep heading away from the sun, they interact with the earth's own electromagnetic field. The Sun's radiation belts ionise earths ionosphere in predictable ways from season to season depending on where earth is on its orbit around the sun. It also has predictable effects between night and day. The scientific community have a reliable "Ionospheric Prediction Service" that is good at predicting ionisation during that 11 year cycle.

A well known effect. Its in cycle number 24 or 25 now since its discovery. 11 years X 25 cycles = 275 years.

The earth does have its own EMF generated because its a spinning ball of molten iron cutting existing lines of magnetic lines of force (the sun's). Thus the earth generates its own (weaker than the sun's) magnetic field. Earth's is weaker because it has cooled faster than the sun and has a cooler "floating" crust over its still molten interior. The crust acts as a shield preventing most of the earth's magnetic lines of force escaping to interact with the sun's lines electromagnetic lines of force that reach the earth.

Look at this bar magnet experiment.

Put a sheet of white paper over the magnet and sprinkle some iron filings on the paper. The filings will orientate themselves along the invisible lines of magnetic force in big loops concentrating at the ends of the magnet (the magnet's N and S poles).

The line along the centre of the earth from N magnetic pole to S magnetic pole is a giant bar magnet with a N and S and surrounded by exactly the same lines of magnetic force (but on a bigger scale).

Because the earth is on a slant/lean, the magnetic poles are not in the same place as the true axis(north pole...where Santa lives).

The magnetic north pole is actually in Hudson Bay and that's where compasses point as where north is. The further south you go, the less the difference in direction between Santa's house and magnetic north That difference in direction is called variation and for east coast Aus on tropic the variation is about 11 degrees. Other places on the earth's surface have different amounts of variation associated with a compass.

All nautical maps (charts) are based on true north and have an indication of the variation for magnetic north for that chart marked on it.

At the earth's north magnetic pole, the compass needle points vertically downward through the centre of the earth. That's called "needle dip" or just dip. Douglas Mawson located the earth's southern magnetic pole in about 1910 by going to antarctica and wandering around with a special compass. When the "dip" measured exactly 90 degrees, that was the location of the earth's south magnetic pole.

That was the point at which earth's induced magnetic lines of force came out of the ice.

Earth's magnetic lines of force (weaker than the sun's) interact with the belts of EMR (electromagnetic radiation)from the sun and produced the phenomena known as the "Northern lights" or borealus. Same for the southern pole.

The lights dance around due to the changing belts of EMR coming from the sun.

So now...….are these out-of-control crazy scientists now claiming that globing warming on earth is affecting the sun???????

Wouldn't surprise me. A modern day version of the flat earth brigade in the 1400s, the perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition or the witch-hunters of Salem.

Global warming is simply a rebalancing of the sun's radiation from one part of the earth's surface to another AND its caused by variations taking place on the EARTH. The earth's axis is slowly becoming more vertical ( to its plane of orbit) so some parts of the earths surface are going to be exposed to more or less of the sun's radiation. Overall, the total amount of radiation that the earth receives from the sun won't change.

It'll just be distributed differently over the earth's surface.

So some parts will be getting warmer and some parts will be getting cooler. And the changes won't be uniform. It'll depend on which season you're looking at.

Global warming??? Absolute rubbish.

Global cooling???? Absolute rubbish

Climate change????? (rebalance of effects of warming and cooling). Spot on.

You can't have the tilt of the earth changing without changing the seasons timing, location effects AND intensity.

Re: Global warming

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:47 am
by NinjaFish

Well explained and easily understood. - I'm going to use this with my sceptic mates.

The only thing I have trouble grasping is why the wobble or why the tilt of the earths original axis and how long until, or if ever, will the world rebalance itself?

Is it a weight issue? Lop sided due to billions of tons of displacement - concrete cities and iron ore mining!
If we unbalance a spinning globe that has spent eons perfecting itself it's inevitable that great chunks of ice from both ends would break off or melt and need to find a new place to sit - naturally and not unlike having to adjust the towels in the washing machine because it's dancing across the floor.

Great holes in the earth also have effects on weather patterns - Roxby Downs in SA did not expand open cut mining due to feared rain changes for the SE of Adelaide!

Some might think this is impossible as the earth is so big but I'm not so sure it's big enough and would love to know what a city of 2 or 3 million actually weighs.

Call me unbalanced :? But... try kicking a soccer ball with lump of clay stuck on one side.

Re: Global warming

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:55 pm
by Matt Flynn
It's an interesting and well put argument Ron, but the argument for CO2 being a heat retainer is strong, this quality of the gas was noted many decades ago.

I'll rise to the challenge of a technical explanation ... the earth has been covered in a see-through doona :D

It would be some sort of miracle for the CO2 science to be wrong. It would be marvellous to discover that warming was caused by something reversible, but I suspect we'll be looking at an ice-free Arctic in a few decades.

The next big El Nino might give some clarity on the trend.

Re: Global warming

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:04 am
by ronje
I'll convert ya eventually, Matt.

The point is that climate change on earth is a result of much bigger interstellar events than those that puny mankind could ever produce AND its simply foolish in the extreme to believe that anything mankind does is going to stop or change the effect.

The cycle of change in earth's obliquity has been going on for millions of years and is responsible for the earth's cycles of climate change which have produced regular ice ages over that period.

I believe that the science of measuring CO2 is accurate enough but CO2 is neither the source nor the cause of climate change. The scientists have jumped too far ahead of themselves with conclusions. "A bridge too far" you might say.

They've ignored exculpatory evidence (look it up) in their rush.

There IS a scientific explanation for the rapid CO2 changes in earth's atmosphere.

Sure, man has been producing increasing amounts of CO2 but what man has also been doing is reducing the earth's ability to "wash" the CO2 and turn it back into oxygen. The result being that here was something the scientists could actually measure. CO2 levels and how fast they're changing.

Scientists just love measuring things and then attributing changes in those measurements to evidence about something or other . They've been measuring changes in everything from plankton, to electrical energy fields to the amount of nutrition in chocolate. Measuring nutrition in a Mars Bar is the closest most of them have ever come to looking at important intrastellar events.

Changes in earth's obliquity has already been measured many times over most notably by Mr Milankovich. No future (or Govt grant money in that).

Reducing the rapid changes in earth's CO2 levels is a matter of stopping silly buggers from getting rid of the earth's natural CO2 "washboard". The earth's lungs. Trees.

I guess that if you get rid of every tree, then it won't matter by how much you've reduced production of CO2. There's nothing left to wash it into oxygen.

And climate change will still be marching on.

Re: Global warming

Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:01 am
by ronje
The only thing I have trouble grasping is why the wobble or why the tilt of the earths original axis and how long until, or if ever, will the world rebalance itself?


The wobble comes about as the earth's rotation slows over time. Like a kid's spinning top slows and starts to wobble as the imperfections (which have zero effect at high rotational speed) start to come into play as the top spin speed slows.

What's been slowing the earth's rotation speed is the interaction between the electrical energy waves from the sun (electromagnetic radiation) and the earth's own electromagnetic lines of force.

Its "back-emf" it can be called. Look that term up. Its a retarding force generated by interaction between 2 moving intersecting magnetic lines of force. Sun and earth or 2 moving magnets.

THAT was why I spoke about bar magnets and magnetic poles.

The earth's continents are islands of rock (cooled molten lava) on the surface of the earth. Floating on the skin is another way to describe it.

This skin (cooler than the underlying molten core) occurs as the heat of the earth escapes off into space. So the surface cools and it forms into thin skin as it does so. Like the skin on a custard.

In geological terms the skin is called plates and the plates develop fractures/cracks as the rotational forces increase as you move further out from the axis of rotation.

Maximum rotational force occurs at the equator as its the furthest from the earth's axis line. The speed of rotation at the equator is the maximum achieved that can be achieved naturally. The earth we're standing on is moving at about 1500 khr or so in an easterly spin at our latitudes).

An aside:

To fling an object into space (like a rocket), it must achieve "escape velocity" to escape the gravitational pull of the earth.

If velocity of the earth's surface is maximum at the equator, then man would be crazy not to take advantage of it to use the earths rotational velocity to reach "escape velocity" with as little fuel load as possible. Sling the rocket into space from the fastest moving part of the earth's surface. Near the equator. ... uator.html

That's why countries try to get their space launching pads as close to the equator that they can get. Some who can't do that just use bigger rockets with bigger fuel loads. Brute strength like the USA's Saturn rockets and Russia's Soyuz rockets.

But we digress.

The skin is not uniform (nor does it remain that way) because the plates move independently of each other due to cracks in the skin at plate junctions.

These cracks allow underlying magma to seep through and we have volcanos along those crack lines. A line of fire one might say. Like the plate that gives us the pacific ring of fire.

Another famous crack line is in the USA ( California) and is called the San Andreas Fault.

Its a junction between two plates and every now and again the two plates release built-up tension and we have earthquakes.

The ground (and any manmade objects on it) shake like hell until the tension is released. You might liken it to the drag on a fishing reel.

Where two plates collide going in opposite directions, the edges crumple and are pushed up into the air forming mountain ranges. Himalayas or the US Rocky Mountain Range.

These plates are pretty heavy and the surface tension between the underside of the plate and the underlying magma is pretty high, so the plates move very slowly as the "drift" around.

Hence the term "continental drift".

Remember all those super continents like Gondwana which moved around and broke up into the continents as we know them today?

THAT was why Douglas Mawson and Scott wanted to go to the south pole. Scott wanted to reach it first (he was competing with Amunsden who won the race) AND to bring back rock samples.

Scott died on the way back and was later found AS WERE his rock samples. Petrified seeds from those samples were the same as seeds found in Africa so the Antarctic and Africa were joined

together at one stage.

Mawson meanwhile (a true scientist) had found the south magnetic pole and also took nearby rock samples which proved the same thing.

Anyhow, the lesson here is that these big heavy plates move around on the earth's surface slowly and they certainly do affect the balance of the earth as it spins. Like your soccer ball with mud

on one side analogy.

But because the speed of "continental drift" is much much slower, then the balancing/unbalancing effect is over a much longer time frame than even Milankovich's obliquity changes.

Obliquity changes are on a 41,000 year cycle. The effects of continental drift take much much longer (perhaps millions of years). There won't be a cycle because the continents are drifting all

over the place. Like the skin on an orange slipping around on its centre.

Liken that effect to line on a baitcaster not tied to the reel's rotating spindle. The line just keeps slipping and you can't screw drag on.

Unless something big hits the earth (like an asteroid or comet), the earth will eventually cool down enough for the magma to solidify and the surface of the earth with stop slipping around. No

more continental drift. No more cyclic changes. Earth will become a dead planet rotating around the sun like the others.

Now that's a pretty serious change in climate!

And you know what would have caused all this?

Not any massive geological changes, not any interstellar occurrences, not continental drift, not changes in the earth's axis or magnetic poles.

Mankind and his insatiable appetite for CO2. THAT'S something bound to have more impact than geological changes and only mankind can achieve that.

I only hope that it doesn't happen before the start of the next barra season as I'm experimenting with some lures.

Re: Global warming

Posted: Wed May 01, 2019 1:54 pm
by Matt Flynn