Re: More for the Slow Man - Rising Sea Level Claim a Total Fraud

On 2 feb, 19:18, makol...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:00 am, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:





On 2 feb, 15:41, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:48 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I've snipped the rest of Graham's post - his abbreviated version of
the article is still a lot longer than anyone in their right mind
would bother reading.

---
Since you must have read it in order to decide what to snip, that speaks
volumes about the state of _your_ mind.
---

My mind wasn't in a great state by time I'd finished plowing through
it. The tedium was relieved by occasional moment of hilarity, but you
have to know quite a bit to find Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner funny, and the
occasional absurdity certainly didn't justify the slog.

As usual, Graham has latched onto the opinions of an isolated and
eccentric figure,

---
Had he latched onto yours, however, He'd be OK, even though you,
yourself, are an isolated and eccentric figure...

If I lived in Texas, I probably would be. Happily, I inhabit a more
congenial environment, where habits like reading serious books for
pleasure aren't seen as strange.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Instead of insulting the individuals who don't agree with you, can you
point out a factual error in Morners interview..

"That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then
we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to
go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing
that: There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the
Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the
Earth's rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law,
right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the
arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by
putting out their arms, they stop by themsel-ves. So you can look at
the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year,
but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be
other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more.
Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter of physics."

Or would be, if the oceans expanded uniformly.

They don't. Fresh water actually contracts when you warm it from 0C to
4C before moving over to expanding. Salt water merely expands very
slightly from -2C to about 5C, and the coeffocient of thermal
expansion doesn't rise linearly with temperature until the temperature
gets over about 10C

http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html

Thus when the tropical oceans expand (and become less dense) some of
the expansion flows away towards the poles, and raises the water level
there, decreasing the moment of interia of the earth.

Obviously, the rising sea level at the equator would raise the moment
of interia of the earth if all the water stayed put, but if enough of
it flowed away, the effect of the reduced density would overwhelm the
greater radius.

There's also the point that much of the Arctic Ocean is covered with
pack ice for much of the year, so that while the Artic is warming up
rapidly, the Arctic ocean under the ice is stuck at -2C, and won't
expand at all.

Antarctica is also surrounded by a large ice shelf, fed by ice sliding
off the Antarctic ice *** - which is sliding rather faster these
days than it used to do - and the temperature of this area of the
Southern Ocean is also stuck at -2C.

And - of course - the rotation of the earth is mostly slowing. We have
to keeping on adding leap seconds to our clocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

When global warming did one of its short term reversals in 1999-2000
the earth did speed up, but not for long.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

Loading