global warming an alternative theory

[fatgaz]

hi all, first of all i am no scientist and i do know the earth is not "ball" shaped but could some one please tell me if this theory could be poss. you know if you put a golf ball on to a table and spin it, it spins quite well, but if you add a piece of plastercine to it, and spin it because of the added weight it does not spin well. so, now we know that the ice caps are melting and what with the continental plates shifting causing earth quakes and also the formation of new islands would not the redistrobution of all that mass throw the earths rotation out and therefore affect its orbit around the sun causing a change in climate. any replies back would be most welcome as i am quite chuffed with this theory

[squarebear]

A blob of plasticine on a golf ball wouldn't even be close to how Mount Everest is to the Earth. To all extents, the earth is smooth. Now assuming the ice caps decide to melt, they would naturally spread themselves equally all over the earth. They would not form one huge tower many times higher then Everest.

[mollykins]

Plus the plastercine is another mass, the mountains etc on earth are all part of the same mass of the earth, just in different places, if that makes sense, which it does in my head.

[ChuckFickens]

Sorry molly, that makes no sense at all (though to be fair neither does this alternative theory to global warming)

[mollykins]

the plastercine and golf ball are two seperate things, so adding one to the other if different to the mountains and moving continents of the earth. if gaz's theory said that a chunk of the golf ball was removed and added to a different bit of the ball then it would be more like how the earth works.

[jake-the-peg]

Sorry variations in the Earths orbit are already well known.

Milankovitch cycles are one important set http://en.wikipedia.o...i/Milankovitch_cycles

These are already accounted for in the calculations in global warming and do not explain the observed effects.

Eathquakes and volcanic activity derives from the motion of the continental plates but this is driven by what is in effect a huge nuclear reactor at the Eath's core rather than the spinning of the Earth.

We know that when you put certain gasses in the atmosphere it traps heat like - well a greenhouse. You can see it in spades in Venus which is much hotter than Mercury despite being millions of miles further from the Sun.

We also know there are record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the Earths overall temperature is at record levels.

I don't think you'll find any serious scientist that will dispute that.

There is still significant debate about how bad it will get and how quickly but I'm afraid we're a little past blaming it on variations of the Earth's spin

[squarebear]

It doesn't matter if it's plasticine, an extra golf ball glued on the side or someone dancing the fandango. It will still make it spin differently. This golf ball though has no bearing on the earth, unless something the size of the moon was to somehow stick to us.

[ChuckFickens]

So vanessa feltz might make a difference then?

[fatgaz]

hi squarebear, if the ice caps did melt and spead equally over the earth the the mass would be different to what it is now ?
hi mollykins, when islands are formed it is from lava cooling therefore changing from liquid to solid, do they both have the same mass
thanks for the replies both of you

[squarebear]

hi squarebear, if the ice caps did melt and spead equally over the earth the the mass would be different to what it is now ?


How so? You were referring to a huge lump stuck on the side.

[jake-the-peg]

Hi fatgaz

If the Arctic ice cap melted it wouldn't be too bad because it's mostly floating ice.

Greenland's ice shelf would be bad, the antarctic's would be about 40 meters rise in sealevel if memory serves.

But I don't think that's likely to happen very soon.

This is the area of greatest controversy - predicting what the effects will be and when they will happen

[jake-the-peg]

Sorry 60 meters for the antarctic and 7 meters for greenland

http://science.howstu...ysics/question473.htm

[mollykins]

Fatgaz, it's the same amount of molecules of lava, just compacted into a solid, so has the same mass. In the same way that water placed inot an icecube tray will have the same mass as the ice formed.

[jaydah]

new lands formed by molten rock is a redistribution of liquid hardened by environment. Its the same mass reformed; as you are replacing past souls.

[beso]

Why is it that people with neither the slightest comprehension of the science involved in existing hypotheses nor the fundamentals of their own proposal disregard the work of thousands of highly trained scientists and expect to come up with a revolutionary new theory?

It bewilders me that someone could be so committed to denial of human involvement in climate change that they would resort to such a ridiculous concoction obviously designed solely to exonerate our involvement and justify their decision to ignore the need to change from our combustion-centric technologies?

Could someone really be so naive to think that the slightest change in our orbit or axial alignment would go unnoticed? To any serious astronomer this would be as profound as moving the UK to the Mid-Atlantic and expecting nobody to notice.

Sad. Really sad.

[New Judge]

Yes quite. So have a read of this:

http://www.geocraft.c...Fossils/ice_ages.html

But I suppose the compilers of this article and the researchers mentioned in it will be dismissed as heretics in the traditional fashion. They certainly will not be accepted as "serious scientists".

[DTCwordfan]

Thanks New Judge my point in other threads exactly. I have a Masters in glaciology and global warming cooling has been a thing between ice ages - and there have been several before the Pleistocene.

Within the interglacials, temperature can bounce around - in 1215 (Magna Carta), England was largely grape based for its drinks with red grapes being grown commonly up to about Bedford - temps were over 3C warmer than today. White wine grapes were common up to Edinburgh (and in the fields not the supermarket shelves).

By the end of the 16thC and into the 17thC there was a complete reversal which took us towards grain drinks......there is evidence of mini-moraines (the soil spoil pushed up by glaciers) on old glacier moraines in Scotland; Snowdonia was known as the Welsh Alps and villages such as the one recently documented on the BBC (Kindle?) suffered major crop failures; also paintings like Jan Brueghel the Younger..... The 19thC saw rapid warming until Krakatoa (only a medium-large volcano) in the 1870s reversed the warming with its ash spewing into the atmosphere and blocking the sun - witness the first Christmas cards etc of folk partying on the Thames.........

[lslowry]

Why is it that if you have a different view to the climate change zealots, they question your intellingence. sad, really.

[lslowry]

sorry, intelligence.

[DTCwordfan]

And Molly glad to see your physics lessons are playing dividends as to mass not changing its overall weight - also bear in mind the redistribution of the mass is very minor in comparison to the total weight of the earth. There is also strong suggestion that glacial/icecap melt would lead to increased surface area of water and that would trigger cooling. Also, the height of melt may not be as high as postulatedbecause a decent percentage of the ice is in the sea and would behave as a massive ice cube melting and not mucvh effect on overall global water levels.

[DTCwordfan]

lol lslowry - rather devalues your comment getting the spelling all wrong - we all do it as typo-dyslexia is very prevalent.........

It does annoy me that counter argument can not be put forward, especially when the evidence is somewhat shaky for how much is man and how much the environment at large - always a classic debate amongst geographers and eath scientists (even in the 19thC with Humboldt etc). Secondly, that many 'greenies' do not know their history and that a lot of the work spilled out of Number 10 in Thatch's time to counter Scargill ands his commie miners. Thirdly, that many of us 'geo-based' folk are still avid about conservation of our Earths resources and do not condone belching out posionous gases into the atmosphere or other solids/liquids into our rivers and seas.

I just trust shortly we will get a better handle on the impact of man viz mother nature, be it the effects of volcanoes, the impact of the sun or whatever. Arguments around CO2 or NOxs/SOxs etc will, I postulate, will become like the arguments of cholestrol. Remember all cholestrol was bad and then we had the split between LDLs and HDLs - these gases can be the same - those in the ecocycles for a short time like plants to the atmoshpere and those that are long term, like the burning of coal and therefore pose more of a 'threat'.