It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rising sea levels will slow down Earth's rotation

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: lostbook

This makes absolutely no sense.


No, it makes perfect sense.

All you have to do is read up a little on angular momentum to understand. I see Phage already explained it perfectly with the ice skater analogy.

But it's responses like this (and all the stars it received) that imo sum up the insane anti-science sentiment here. Take any subject with the slightest bit of complexity or counter-intuitiveness, and instead of curiosity and outside-the-box thinking (i.e. the exact sort of things that drive science itself) - all you get is tardiness and negativity, followed by backslapping for that primitive way of thinking.

I wish we had internet in the days of ancient Greece, so we could go back and see how many stars this exact same comment would've received, when some smarmy sandal-wearing kook had the audacity to suggest the Earth might be round too.


I was mostly commenting on the speculation about living longer as a result.

The apparent appeal to ecofanticists is strong though. I am suspicious of the motives of people attempting to attribute significance to this.




posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth




Could the water around the equator cause flooding if the earth tilted or shifted poles?

If the tilt of the Earth changed dramatically it would produce a number of bad effects. But that doesn't really have much to do with the topic.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Couldn't what I asked possibly cause the sea levels to rise?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I could also imagine that with the ice gone we would also get more evaporation and with that more rain but I wonder just how much water our atmosphere is capable of holding . Lots and lots of feed backs and loops going on in the whole of the system .



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
If the Earth's rotation has slowed by 4.5 hours over the last 2500 years, doesn't that mean that the length of a day in 500 B.C was about 19.5 hours?

-dex



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

I think a pole shift would be absolutely catastrophic for humans. Flooding would be the least of our concerns.

However, I believe that the sea level would likely rise as a consequence of the shifting location of extant glaciers. Once they are moved into locations where the amount of solar energy is more direct they would melt faster. Thus sea level would rise because as the glaciers melt, ice that was once landlocked would be converted in water and added to the ocean's volume.

-dex



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
sorry for the delay... the keyboard had some foreign sticky stuff on a few keys


any ocean level rise will be negated with the downward pressure of increased water volume on the thin ocean plates at the bottom of the oceans.... the crust of the Earth is kinda/sorta plastic and will flex like a balloon at the additional weight of the increased water volume from melting ice

so coastlines will not suddenly encroach on the close by ocean front highway any time soon

maybe in a 100 years when 99% of Antarctica ice is melted and the ocean seabed has sunk as far-as-it-will-stretch...
Yeah, then the land encroachment will start...


the whole flooding, shrinking landmass as Oceans rise was the fear scam long before they created the climate change/global warming fear-porn Info-News crap on the propaganda media sources=to-keep-us-informed (rather in-firmed with manic panic)

another way to visualize things concerning ice melt...is that as the Land on which most all of Antarctic Ice sits upon is being pushed downward until a equilibrium exists with the Earths' Mantle of liquid rock which the Land floats upon... as the ice melts the land rises from wayyyyy less weight crushing & pushibg the Antarctic Land down into the displaced Mantle (a molasses consistency material)

as the Antarctic rises the Ocean floor sinks due to a greater weight of water... so there is no sum gain in the sea-level.... doom-porn shot down, with that first arrow Huh


edit on th29145660995527522016 by St Udio because: (no reason given)


 



Weather/storm models will need to take into account the continual deepening of the Oceans and the greater volume of water that will be effected by the Lunar Tide effect of Gravity... it could mean forever increasing storm strengths, category 10 hurricanes being the Norm instead of the unique/rare item

wind driven tides will cause the rare damage of a intense 'Nor-Easter' at the drop of a hat in that decreased land-ice scenario...
the oceans will not rise per-say BUT will become more and more threatening/damaging when an Ill-Wind-blows
edit on th29145661123527132016 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Phage

Couldn't what I asked possibly cause the sea levels to rise?


Yes, I suppose so. Locally. I said as much.

It would also cause other things to happen. Polaris "moving" from its location in the sky, for example.

edit on 2/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I don't believe the assertion that an Earth day was 19.5 hours in 500bc. That would mean that a full day in 1900 was 23h42m. You'd think that such an adjustment required to correct our clocks would've been well known after all these years. I would certainly love to hear other scientists confirm this.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Mass causes the attraction called gravity. Rotation does the opposite if gravity. Proof is that all the planets are drifting away from the sun, water drops fly away from you when you spin a wet towel and in a vehicle your body presses against the opposite direction of the corner you turn in towards.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: lostbook

This makes absolutely no sense.


Just reporting the article to ATS, as-is.

It makes sense to me. When the glaciers melt, there will be more moving water. I could be wrong but I assume that water is heavier than ice-that's why ice floats in water. As more water is added to the Oceans, the Earth will be slowed down to account for that extra water; eventually things will probably get back to normal as we know it. This is my non-scientific perspective.


Water isn't heavier per se, it is denser than ice.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I think their model is flawed for a couple of reasons. One earth's mass doesn't change if water is frozen or liquid. Second even at the equator more water means more pressure on the ocean crust meaning the earth will compensate for the shift. Third even if it didn't I have severe doubts that enough drag would be created to slow the earth's spin but if it did I would say the moon would compensate for it being tidal locked. Meaning the moons momentum also need to be considered and I doubt that's in their model either. Currently the moon causes the earth spin to slow by 1.4 milliseconds every 100 years. But also means that the moon would provide momentum if the earth tried to move slower than that and we would see the moon retreat from earth faster to compensate.
edit on 2/28/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

It would have been easier to understand had they simply stated that liquids apply resistance to the rotational force. While I am grounded in Earth Science I never ever got beyond algebra, so physics are pretty much an unknown quantity to me. Thanks for the clarification.


edit on 28-2-2016 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
The model is quite robust, actually. It includes lunar influences, glacial rebound, core-mantle coupling...
advances.sciencemag.org...

As long as the Moon revolves around the Earth at a slower rate than the Earth rotates, it will continue to slow the Earth's rotation. It will continue to do so until the Earth is tidally locked to the Moon. Until its rate of rotation matches the orbital period of the Moon.
edit on 2/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thank you for bringing up the conservation of angular momentum......



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley


If the Earth's rotation has slowed by 4.5 hours over the last 2500 years, doesn't that mean that the length of a day in 500 B.C was about 19.5 hours?


No Dex that's not correct. You should read the paper before you make such ignorant statements!


That 16000 seconds of rotational slowing represents the total clock drift for the last 2500 years. That's an average of about 6.4 seconds per year.

The length of a day in 500 B.C.E. is about the same as the length of a day in 2016 C.E.

-dex



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley
Yes. 2,500 years ago the period of rotation was about 50 milliseconds shorter than it is now. Not a big difference.

Always preferrable to read the actual article.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks for allowing me to correct my own mistake.

You must be getting soft. There had been a time when you would have metaphorically stomped me to a bloody pulp for asking such an inane question.


-dex



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

I hadn't read the paper when you first posed the question.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
The apparent appeal to ecofanticists is strong though. I am suspicious of the motives of people attempting to attribute significance to this.


Ah ok, now I understand.

Yeah, I would have a hard time learning basic physics too if I was so hung up on projecting all my paranoid political beliefs onto it first, instead of just, you know, learning it...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join