+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

  1. Link to Post #21
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,843
    Thanked 94,598 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/2...as-paused-too/

    Fact check for Andrew Glikson – Ocean heat has paused too
    Posted on February 25, 2013 by Anthony Watts

    Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data. He writes:
    As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20×1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4×1022 joules.

    To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.


    Figure 3: Build-up in Earth’s total heat content. http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs...nt_on_DK12.pdf


    ---------------------------------------------------

    Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy system?

    Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:


    The plot shows the 18-year trend in 0-700 m Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) estimated from in situ data according to Lyman et al. 2010. The error bars include uncertainties from baseline climatology, mapping method, sampling, and XBT bias correction.

    Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. Additional displays of the upper OHCA are available in the Plots section.
    As Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say: “Bazinga!

    h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the PMEL graph.


    UPDATE: See the above graph converted to temperature anomaly in this post [reproduced in part, below].


    Ocean Temperature And Heat Content
    Posted on February 25, 2013by Willis Eschenbach
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    Anthony has an interesting post up discussing the latest findings regarding the heat content of the upper ocean.

    He notes that there has been no significant change in the OHCA in the last decade. It’s a significant piece of information. I still have a problem with the graph, however, which is that the units are meaningless to me. What does a change of 10 zeta-joules mean? So following my usual practice, I converted the graph to a more familiar units, degrees C. Let me explain how I went about that.

    To start with, I digitized the data from the graph. Often this is far, far quicker than tracking down the initial dataset, particularly if the graph contains the errors. I work on the Mac, so I use a program called GraphClick, I’m sure the same or better is available on the PC. I measured three series: the data, the plus error, and the minus error. I then put this data into an Excel spreadsheet, available here.

    Then all that remained was to convert the change in zeta-joules to the corresponding change in degrees C. The first number I need is the volume of the top 700 metres of the ocean. I have a spreadsheet for this. Interpolated, it says 237,029,703 cubic kilometres. I multiply that by 62/60 to adjust for the density of salt vs. fresh water, and multiply by 10^9 to convert to tonnes. I multiply that by 4.186 mega-joules per tonne per degree C. That tells me that it takes about a thousand zeta-joules to raise the upper ocean temperature by 1°C.

    Dividing all of the numbers in their chart by that conversion factor gives us their chart, in units of degrees C. Calculations are shown on the spreadsheet.


    Figure 2. Upper ocean heat content anomaly, 0-700 metres, in degrees C.


    I don’t plan to say a whole lot about that, I’ll leave it to the commenters, other than to point out the following facts:

    • The temperature was roughly flat from 1993-1998. Then it increased by about one tenth of a degree in the next five years to 2003, and has been about flat since then.

    • The claim is made that the average temperature of the entire upper ocean of the planet is currently known to an error (presumably one sigma) of about a hundredth of a degree C.

    • I know of no obvious reason for the 0.1°C temperature rise 1998-2003, nor for the basically flat temperatures before and after.

    • The huge increase in observations post 2002 from the addition of the Argo floats didn’t reduce the error by a whole lot.

    My main question in this revolves around the claimed error. I find the claim that we know the average temperature of the upper ocean with an error of only one hundredth of a degree to be very unlikely … the ocean is huge beyond belief. This claimed ocean error is on the order of the size of the claimed error in the land temperature records, which have many more stations, taking daily records, over a much smaller area, at only one level. Doubtful.

    I also find it odd that the very large increase in the number of annual observations due to the more than 3,000 Argo floats didn’t decrease the error much …

    As is common in climate science … more questions than answers. Why did it go up?
    Why is it now flat? Which way will the frog jump next?

    Regards to everyone,

    w.

    Repost from: (here)
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ewan (18th November 2017), Foxie Loxie (18th November 2017)

  3. Link to Post #22
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,843
    Thanked 94,598 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    As for the "hair-dryer vs. stove heating" comparison:

    As many as ten million underwater volcanoes currently estimated

    By Robert W. Felix November 16, 2016 Robert

    Ten million underwater volcanoes

    And we wonder what is heating our seas

    We’ve learned a lot in the last 25 years, especially when it comes to underwater volcanoes. When I began researching and writing Not by Fire but by Ice in 1991, scientists guestimated that there were 10,000 submarine volcanoes in the entire world.

    Two years later, marine geophysicists discovered 1,133 previously unmapped underwater volcanoes off the coast of Easter Island.

    And they were huge. (Still are.) Some of the newly-found volcanoes rose almost 1½ miles above the seafloor. Even then, their peaks remained about 1½ miles below the water’s surface. They’re packed into a relatively small area about the size of New York state.

    We have no idea how many volcanoes may be lurking beneath the seas. What we do know, is that they are pumping awesome amounts of red-hot basalt – up to 1,200ºC (2,200ºF) hot – into the inky black water.


    Superheated molten lava about 1,200ºC (2,200ºF) erupts, producing a bright flash as it blows into the water before settling back to the sea floor. Image courtesy of NSF and NOAA Beginning with the first edition of Not by Fire but by Ice, I made the audacious suggestion that those underwater volcanoes were heating our seas. (See Chapter 10, “Fish Stew.” )

    Global-warming alarmists scoffed. A mere 11,000 submarine volcanoes could not possibly be heating the seas. Impossible. After all, the oceans cover 71 percent of our planet.

    But the number of underwater volcanoes kept climbing. By 2005, NASA was forced to admit that there might be one million submarine volcanoes. As many as 75,000 of those underwater behemoths soar half-a-mile above the surrounding seafloor and several thousand of those, in turn, might be active.

    Even so, global-warming alarmists never wavered. One million underwater volcanoes were not enough to heat the seas.

    Still, the discoveries kept coming.

    Soon, the estimated number of submarine volcanoes had jumped to more than three million.

    But any thought that three million underwater volcanoes might affect ocean temperature was considered heretical. I mean, natural forces couldn’t possibly be heating the seas. Could they? Let’s keep blaming humans.

    How long can this denial continue? Especially with ever more discoveries coming to light.

    Reader Joe Franco just sent me a study by professors Fisher and Wheat that estimates the number of hydrothermally active seamounts at somewhere between 100,000 and 10,000,000. (“Hydrothermally active” means they are heating the water.)

    You read that right: Ten million!

    The two professors base their conclusion on the fact that a significant fraction of the seamounts already surveyed appear to be hydrothermally active.

    These seamounts are also huge. As many as a million of those planetary-sized hot water heaters have a diameter greater than 7 km and stand more than 2 km high (more than 4.2 miles across and 1.2 miles high).

    That’s taller than New Hampshire’s Mt. Washington, which, at 6,289 feet, stands almost exactly 1.2 miles high. Mt. Washington is the highest peak in the Northeastern United States

    As if that weren’t enough, Fisher and Wheat estimate that another 1 to 10 million smaller hydrothermal features (such as black smokers) may dot the ocean floor. Those “smaller hydrothermal features” stand some 100 meters (330 ft) high.

    So, what do we have here?

    A “significant fraction” of a million seamounts taller than Mount Washington, and up to ten million smaller hydrothermal features, the height of a 30-story building, are pumping vast amounts of heat into the seas, and we refuse to admit that they could be affecting ocean temperatures?

    I think it’s time to wake up.

    Repost from: (here)


    Related:
    Earth Changes 2010 to Date
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    bluestflame (18th November 2017), Ewan (18th November 2017), Foxie Loxie (18th November 2017), Reinhard (21st November 2017), thunder24 (18th November 2017)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Australia Avalon Member bluestflame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st April 2010
    Location
    a spark
    Age
    48
    Posts
    2,564
    Thanks
    10,330
    Thanked 6,316 times in 1,546 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    well, if you boil a pot from underneath , might take a while but eventually the water will get hot

    seems to require a lot more heat if you try to boil it from above

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bluestflame For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (18th November 2017), Hervé (18th November 2017), thunder24 (18th November 2017)

  7. Link to Post #24
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,843
    Thanked 94,598 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    Now, for something to take one out of the "box" errr... bubble:

    Volcanoes are erupting all over the place right now. Scientists have figured out why: A minute slowdown in the planet's rotation

    Robin Wylie The Conversation
    Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:36 UTC



    The Earth seems to have been smoking a lot recently. Volcanoes are erupting in Iceland, Hawaii, Indonesia, Ecuador and Mexico right now. Others, in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, erupted recently but seem to have calmed down. Many of these have threatened homes and forced evacuations. But among their spectators, these eruptions raise this question: Is there such a thing as a season for volcanic eruptions?

    While volcanoes may not have "seasons" as we know them, scientists have started to discern intriguing patterns in their activity.

    Eruptions caused by a shortened day

    The four seasons are caused by the Earth's axis of rotation tilting toward and away from the sun. But our planet undergoes another, less well-known change, which affects it in a more subtle way, perhaps even volcanically.

    Due to factors like the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, the speed at which the Earth rotates constantly changes. Accordingly the length of a day actually varies from year to year. The difference is only in the order of milliseconds. But new research suggests that this seemingly small perturbation could bring about significant changes on our planet - or more accurately, within it.

    A study published in the journal Terra Nova in February showed that, since the early 19th century, changes in the Earth's rotation rate tended to be followed by increases in global volcanic activity. It found that, between 1830 and 2013, the longest period for which a reliable record was available, relatively large changes in rotation rate were immediately followed by an increase in the number of large volcanic eruptions. And, more than merely being correlated, the authors believe that the rotation changes might actually have triggered these large eruptions.

    Altering the spin of a planet, even by a small amount, requires a huge amount of energy. It has been estimated that changes in the Earth's rotation rate dissipate around 120,000 petajoules of energy each year - enough to power the United States for the same length of time. This energy is transferred into the Earth's atmosphere and subsurface. And it is this second consequence that the Terra Nova authors believe could affect volcanoes.

    The vast quantities of energy delivered to the subsurface by rotation changes are likely to perturb its stress field. And, since the magma that feeds volcanic eruptions resides in the Earth's crust, stress variations there may make it easier for the liquid rock to rise to the surface, and thereby increase the rate of volcanic eruptions.

    The Terra Nova study is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, the idea that minute changes to the Earth's spin could affect volcanic motions deep within the planet is an intriguing one.

    Read the rest of this article here.
    -------------------------------------------
    SOTT Comment: Finally, some government-approved scientists have
    1.) noticed the increase in volcanic activity, and

    2.) connected it with a minute slowdown in planetary rotation.
    It needs to be further explained, however, that the 'seasonal' changes to patterns of erupting volcanoes marry with 'seasonal' changes to patterns of other climatological, seismic and cosmic phenomena. There aren't just more volcanoes erupting now. There are more earthquakes now. There is more precipitation now. There is more snow now. There are stronger storms now. There is more methane outgassing now. There is more heat coming up from the oceans now. There are more meteor fireballs now. There are more comets in the solar system now. There are more cosmic rays reaching Earth now.

    Etcetera, etcetera.

    All of it is inter-related, which is why climatology alone cannot explain what is going on. Only a (truly) multi-disciplinary approach - one that is disinterested in biased assumptions that improve chances of receiving grants - can account for all the observation data.

    SOTT.net has been saying for years that a slowdown in the planet's rotation can account for much of what has unfolded in terms of global planetary and climate chaos in the last decade or so.

    The question is: what is causing the planet's rotation to slow down?

    It cannot simply be "factors like the gravitational pull of the sun and moon" because the same thing is happening to other planets in the solar system!
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (20th November 2017), Bill Ryan (20th November 2017), Ewan (20th November 2017), Foxie Loxie (20th November 2017), Reinhard (21st November 2017)

  9. Link to Post #25
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,843
    Thanked 94,598 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    Quote Posted by bluestflame (here)
    well, if you boil a pot from underneath , might take a while but eventually the water will get hot

    seems to require a lot more heat if you try to boil it from above
    That's because of one of those pesky phenomenon known as "convection": warmer, less dense liquids have that tendency to rise up above denser, colder liquids and create "convection currents"... so... heating a liquid's top layers has little to no chance of sinking and disturbing colder, denser layers.

    With water, there is another one of those nature's weirdness that's taking place due to the physical properties of water:
    Usually, the solid form of a liquid is heavier, denser than its corresponding liquid form...

    ... but for water:
    ice "floats"!

    That is, water's solid form is lighter than its liquid form... and that's the reason why oceans and lake bottoms are not frozen solid ... just ice caps at the poles and ice rinks on lakes.
    Water is densest at 4 °C:


    Density of ice and water as a function of temperature
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (20th November 2017), Bill Ryan (20th November 2017), bluestflame (20th November 2017), Foxie Loxie (20th November 2017)

  11. Link to Post #26
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,398
    Thanks
    14,875
    Thanked 6,343 times in 1,253 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    I think you would have to be blind not to notice that vulcanism - in the areas the we see - the land - is increasing. It follows that it is very likely to be happening under the sea.

    What could slow down the Earth's rotation?

    I can think of two ways..

    1. an external force acts against the inertial spin of the planet. This would have to be a large body nearby, and probably magnetic. So this is not happening.

    2. The other way relates to density variations. Remember the spinning skater. They have a fixed amount of spin momentum. But they can change their rate of revolutions, for the same momentum, but moving mass about. If they put their arms out, the spin rate slows down. Could this have implications for the Earth? Well, only if there are big variances in density by depth. Check this. There are. The outer core is denser than the mantle. So if a bit of that increased density moves outward, we have a possible mechanism for slight spin rate reduction.

    How could this be occurring? I can only guess at heating or magnetism. We know the Earth's magnetic field is weakening too....
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (20th November 2017), Bruno (20th November 2017), Ewan (20th November 2017), Foxie Loxie (20th November 2017), Hervé (20th November 2017), Reinhard (21st November 2017)

  13. Link to Post #27
    Canada Avalon Member Bruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th December 2016
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Age
    46
    Posts
    180
    Thanks
    10,726
    Thanked 964 times in 172 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/21...e-prepared.htm

    More Major Earthquakes In 2018: Why?

    New research presented by the University of Colorado's Roger Bilham and the University of Montana's Rebecca Bendick at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America claimed that there will be an increase in the number of major earthquakes starting 2018.

    The surge in devastating earthquakes, according to the scientists, is connected to changes in the speed at which the Earth rotates. The team behind the study believes that variations on the world's rotation speed could result in the release of massive amounts of underground energy that will trigger the earthquakes.

    "The changes to the Earth's rotation are miniscule, as the effects include changing the lengths of days by just one millisecond. However, that will be enough to trigger more earthquakes, according to the study. There is no definite explanation on their connection, but the scientists believe that it has something to do with the behavior of the Earth's core."

    I've seen quite a few mainstream news articles talking about increasing earthquakes related to the slowing of the Earths rotation.

    Interesting times we live in.

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bruno For This Post:

    Baby Steps (20th November 2017), Bill Ryan (20th November 2017), Ewan (20th November 2017), Foxie Loxie (20th November 2017), Hervé (20th November 2017), KiwiElf (21st November 2017), Reinhard (21st November 2017)

  15. Link to Post #28
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,360
    Thanks
    821
    Thanked 3,810 times in 1,113 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    I have two additional possibilities to add to the confusion of global warming???
    Only a few days ago I realized that we do not have a Halogen Sun but Geoengineering (chemtrails) have given us a Halogen Atmosphere which appears to focus the sun's rays, much like a magnifying glass, perhaps causing forest fires and heating the surface of the ocean.

    The other idea is that if the North Magnetic Pole is truly moving towards Siberia, then the Cold is also moving North with it. In addition, relative to the NMP, all the land masses of the West will be moving towards the Heat of the Equator. Also the Ocean Bulge of water at the Equator will move North with the NMP. Places like Miami will suddenly experience a "Rise in Water Levels." Antarctica will move North toward Australia. The Countries of the Eastern hemisphere will experience Cooling as they are actually being approached by the NMP. The melting of the core metals which result in movement of the NMP may be a cyclic movement happening in our galaxy of which we are a part. One side of the planet balances out the other. Now where DEFORESTATION enters the picture, there is very real danger of our dying of lack of oxygen.

    I came across a youtube video showing what we took for a mountain actually being the STUMP of a TREE which may have been one or more miles high. This means oxygen levels and atmospheric height thereof must have been many many miles higher than it presently is. This would have enabled giant animals, insects and crops to exist, such as the shapes of these I believe I see in Google Earth covering miles, not feet. This video pointed out that our Earth appears to have been Strip Mined and Deforested. As oxygen disappeared, animal life and vegetable life grew smaller. It is interesting to hear talk of AGAIN making mankind much smaller. Lack of oxygen and food already does that but slowly.

    Getting rid of Oil means also replacing its byproducts which are not biodegradable. We inevitably will have to use Tesla's Death Ray to demateriallise the indestructible non-degradable things we manufacture.

  16. Link to Post #29
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,241
    Thanks
    73,202
    Thanked 267,627 times in 19,726 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    Quote Posted by amor (here)
    The other idea is that if the North Magnetic Pole is truly moving towards Siberia, then the Cold is also moving North with it. In addition, relative to the NMP, all the land masses of the West will be moving towards the Heat of the Equator. Also the Ocean Bulge of water at the Equator will move North with the NMP. Places like Miami will suddenly experience a "Rise in Water Levels." Antarctica will move North toward Australia. The Countries of the Eastern hemisphere will experience Cooling as they are actually being approached by the NMP.
    If/when the Magnetic Poles move, no land masses move with them.

    Quote Posted by amor (here)
    I came across a youtube video showing what we took for a mountain actually being the STUMP of a TREE which may have been one or more miles high.
    There are YouTube videos, made by people who understand so little science that it's genuinely hard to explain or understand, that try to claim just about anything one might conceivably imagine. (Not a joke! )


  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    BMJ (1st December 2017), Foxie Loxie (21st November 2017), Hervé (21st November 2017), Reinhard (21st November 2017)

  18. Link to Post #30
    New Zealand Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    1st September 2011
    Posts
    5,984
    Thanks
    34,888
    Thanked 38,520 times in 5,691 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    Quote Posted by Bruno (here)
    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/21...e-prepared.htm

    More Major Earthquakes In 2018: Why?

    New research presented by the University of Colorado's Roger Bilham and the University of Montana's Rebecca Bendick at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America claimed that there will be an increase in the number of major earthquakes starting 2018.

    The surge in devastating earthquakes, according to the scientists, is connected to changes in the speed at which the Earth rotates. The team behind the study believes that variations on the world's rotation speed could result in the release of massive amounts of underground energy that will trigger the earthquakes.

    "The changes to the Earth's rotation are miniscule, as the effects include changing the lengths of days by just one millisecond. However, that will be enough to trigger more earthquakes, according to the study. There is no definite explanation on their connection, but the scientists believe that it has something to do with the behavior of the Earth's core."

    I've seen quite a few mainstream news articles talking about increasing earthquakes related to the slowing of the Earths rotation.

    Interesting times we live in.
    I remember that scientists were claiming the impact of the Japanese Quake/Tsunami had minutely shifted Earth's orbit after the fact - (...if only I could remember where I read it?...)

  19. Link to Post #31
    Australia Avalon Member bluestflame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st April 2010
    Location
    a spark
    Age
    48
    Posts
    2,564
    Thanks
    10,330
    Thanked 6,316 times in 1,546 posts

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bluestflame For This Post:

    Bruno (21st November 2017), Foxie Loxie (21st November 2017), Hervé (21st November 2017)

  21. Link to Post #32
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,241
    Thanks
    73,202
    Thanked 267,627 times in 19,726 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    Quote Posted by KiwiElf (here)
    I remember that scientists were claiming the impact of the Japanese Quake/Tsunami had minutely shifted Earth's orbit after the fact - (...if only I could remember where I read it?...)
    Here's one report:
    Extract:
    The calculations also show the Japan quake should have shifted the position of Earth's figure axis (the axis about which Earth's mass is balanced) by about 17 centimeters (6.5 inches), towards 133 degrees east longitude. Earth's figure axis should not be confused with its north-south axis; they are offset by about 10 meters (about 33 feet). This shift in Earth's figure axis will cause Earth to wobble a bit differently as it rotates, but it will not cause a shift of Earth's axis in space—only external forces such as the gravitational attraction of the sun, moon and planets can do that.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    BMJ (1st December 2017), Bruno (21st November 2017), Foxie Loxie (21st November 2017), Hervé (21st November 2017), Reinhard (21st November 2017), Star Tsar (21st November 2017)

  23. Link to Post #33
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,722
    Thanks
    59,843
    Thanked 94,598 times in 15,432 posts

    Default Re: Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

    Quote Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
    [...]
    Extract:
    The calculations also show the Japan quake should have shifted the position of Earth's figure axis (the axis about which Earth's mass is balanced) by about 17 centimeters (6.5 inches), towards 133 degrees east longitude. Earth's figure axis should not be confused with its north-south axis; they are offset by about 10 meters (about 33 feet). This shift in Earth's figure axis will cause Earth to wobble a bit differently as it rotates, but it will not cause a shift of Earth's axis in space—only external forces such as the gravitational attraction of the sun, moon and planets can do that.
    Notice that "should have" I emphasized... it's all computations... not from observed phenomenon, especially in the Japan tsunami case since the earthquake's magnitude kept being inflated with no corroborating evidence from Japan's seismograms...

    Similar story and wording from the big 8.8 Chilean earthquake: Did the Chile earthquake change Earth's day? | EarthSky
    Quote [...]
    Recent news reports have focused on Earth's length of day, noting that the Chilean earthquake might have shortened days by as much as 1.26 microseconds out of 24 hours. That's true. But it's also negligible compared to the normal effect of wind and tides, which can lengthen or shorten days a thousand times more than earthquakes can.
    [...]
    Moreover, in both of these Japan and Chile cases, there is an inferred increase in earth's spinning speed (day length decrease) whereas the studies posted are reporting a spin speed DECREASE (day length increase)...

    Either case imply a re-balancing of earth global stress field and its re-adjustment with earth becoming "flatter" with a minute equatorial sea level rise in one case or becoming "rounder" with an equatorial sea level drop in the other case.

    PS: Reminiscing sour memories: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post312727
    Last edited by Hervé; 21st November 2017 at 16:30.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (21st November 2017), BMJ (1st December 2017), Foxie Loxie (21st November 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts