Matter in Motion: Gravity Fluctuations

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Source: Earth's Changing Gravity

We have more data than understanding. Knowing that ice melting tens of thousands of years ago is affecting global warming kind of puts in perspective so called "man-made" global warming.

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

From the source quoted above:

Even glaciers that melted long ago affect sea level today. For instance, a large mass of ice covered the Hudson Bay area during the last Ice Age, which ended around 15,000 years ago. Now, without the weight of glaciers, the land beneath that area is slowly rebounding at a rate of about 1 centimeter (0.3 inch) per year. Over time, this postglacial rebound affects regional coastlines, complicating tide gauge readings and making it harder to monitor changes in global sea level. GRACE data will allow scientists to measure the change that can be attributed to postglacial rebound, making it easier to determine how much other factors -- such as global warming -- contribute to rising sea levels.

In my own words, the sea levels today are being affected by gravity changes that may have happened 15,000 years ago. Man-made global warming is a simplification of more complex scientific processes that are not fully understood.

[NConly]

In 1980 I was in Houston and scientist said Galveston would be a least a foot under water in 20 years. They certainly missed the mark.

I think if they have a hard time with 20 years I am not going to believe them about 15.000 years

[The Barbarian]

On 10/9/2023 at 10:10 PM, NConly said:

In 1980 I was in Houston and scientist said Galveston would be a least a foot under water in 20 years. They certainly missed the mark.

That's surprising, since the consensus of climatologists was that we wouldn't see much flooding until the end of this century.    Do you have a name or a link?

The meeting at Woods Hole gathered together about 10 distinguished climate scientists, who also sought advice from other scientists from across the world. The group was led by Jule Charney from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most respected atmospheric scientists of the 20th century.

The Report lays out clearly what was known about the likely effects of increasing carbon dioxide on the climate, as well as the uncertainties. The main conclusion of the Report was direct:

We estimate the most probable warming for a doubling of CO₂ to be near 3°C with a probable error of 1.5°C.

In the 40 years since their meeting, the annual average CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, has increased by about 21%. Over the same period, global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.66°C, almost exactly what could have been expected if a doubling of CO₂ produces about 2.5°C warming – just a bit below their best estimate. A remarkably prescient prediction.

https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

When we looked at demographics, we found that today’s flood risk is predominantly concentrated in white, impoverished communities. Many of these are in low-lying areas directly on the coasts or Appalachian valleys at risk from heavy rainfall.

But the increase in risk as rising oceans reach farther inland during storms and high tides over the next 30 years falls disproportionately on communities with large African American populations on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Urban and rural areas from Texas to Florida to Virginia contain predominantly Black communities projected to see at least a 20% increase in flood risk over the next 30 years.

https://theconversation.com/new-flood-maps-show-us-damage-rising-26-in-next-30-years-due-to-climate-change-alone-and-the-inequity-is-stark-175958

As suggested, it is more complicated than merely sea rise (which until recently was mostly due to thermal expansion of warmer water, rather than melting glaciers).

 

[RV_Wizard]

We all know how reliable the doom-and-gloom scientists have been.  Check out these glorious predictions made in the name of science.

The end of the world IS coming and it IS man-made; caused by the sins of mankind and their utter rejection of Jesus Christ as their savior and God as their Creator.  It begins with Jesus coming in the clouds to take away His own.  That is followed by seven years of tribulation in which about half of mankind is destroyed.  Then Christ will return and reign for a thousand years.

It's not global warming that is the problem; but global cooling; the coldness in the hearts of man and his refusal to obey the commandments of his God.  It is that cooling that will be responsible for the ultimate destruction of this world and the creation of a new, better world where sin is a thing of the past.  The end of this world can come at any time, but the end of YOUR world could happen today.  None of us know when our end will come; whether we are one step from the end or whether it is decades away. 

We should be good stewards of our planet as God has given us the responsibility to care for it and keep it clean.  That said, we couldn't destroy this world if we all got together and worked at it.  It doesn't belong to us.  We didn't create it.  It is the property of God almighty.  We should keep that in mind.

 

[NConly]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's surprising, since the consensus of climatologists was that we wouldn't see much flooding until the end of this century.    Do you have a name or a link?

The meeting at Woods Hole gathered together about 10 distinguished climate scientists, who also sought advice from other scientists from across the world. The group was led by Jule Charney from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most respected atmospheric scientists of the 20th century.

The Report lays out clearly what was known about the likely effects of increasing carbon dioxide on the climate, as well as the uncertainties. The main conclusion of the Report was direct:

We estimate the most probable warming for a doubling of CO₂ to be near 3°C with a probable error of 1.5°C.

In the 40 years since their meeting, the annual average CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, has increased by about 21%. Over the same period, global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.66°C, almost exactly what could have been expected if a doubling of CO₂ produces about 2.5°C warming – just a bit below their best estimate. A remarkably prescient prediction.

https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

When we looked at demographics, we found that today’s flood risk is predominantly concentrated in white, impoverished communities. Many of these are in low-lying areas directly on the coasts or Appalachian valleys at risk from heavy rainfall.

But the increase in risk as rising oceans reach farther inland during storms and high tides over the next 30 years falls disproportionately on communities with large African American populations on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Urban and rural areas from Texas to Florida to Virginia contain predominantly Black communities projected to see at least a 20% increase in flood risk over the next 30 years.

https://theconversation.com/new-flood-maps-show-us-damage-rising-26-in-next-30-years-due-to-climate-change-alone-and-the-inequity-is-stark-175958

As suggested, it is more complicated than merely sea rise (which until recently was mostly due to thermal expansion of warmer water, rather than melting glaciers).

 

No, to long ago to have a link. Just like when Paul Harvey was quoting the same guys when they said white beans cause cancer and also bacon cause cancer. I read and see things on the news that always repeat predictions which is just a glorified word meaning Im guessing. I learned to ignore predictions.

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, NConly said:

No, to long ago to have a link. Just like when Paul Harvey was quoting the same guys when they said white beans cause cancer and also bacon cause cancer.

In the sense that smoked meat and meat treated with nitrates has carcinogens.   This is true.   But so does a lot of other things.   Moderation works for most of us.    I think Harvey got it backwards on beans though.   Fiber in beans is useful in reducing the risk of colo-rectal cancer.    Some bean do have toxins that can be carcinogens, but few Americans eat those.   Paul Harvey was notorious for getting the story wrong on technical stuff.   I loved his "rest of the story" tales, though.

I've looked through the literature and nowhere do I see that prediction for Galveston.

6 hours ago, NConly said:

I read and see things on the news that always repeat predictions which is just a glorified word meaning Im guessing.

Depends on who's doing it.   When James Hanson of NASA predicted the effect of CO2 on warming thirty years in advance, he got it precisely right.    Because he used data and reliable science to make that prediction.

 

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

We all know how reliable the doom-and-gloom scientists have been.

Here's how two scientists did on predicting global temperatures.    James Hansen of NASA and "climate skeptic" Dr. Richard Linzen:

I

I'd say that Hansen did a better job.   What do you think?

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

It's not global warming that is the problem

See above.   You got that wrong.  

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

We should be good stewards of our planet as God has given us the responsibility to care for it and keep it clean.  That said, we couldn't destroy this world if we all got together and worked at it. 

We can (and have) destroyed lush environments and made them unable to support human populations.    Warming will almost certainly not kill all humanity, much less destroy the world.    But it is already causing death and destruction.    And it will get worse before it gets better.

 

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Check out these glorious predictions made in the name of science.

I notice that they are all opinions by scientists who opposed the consensus at the time.   For example almost all climatologists, even in the 1970s, were aware that the Earth was going to become warmer.    Your display is evidence that scientific consensus is a better indication of the future than the opinions of the minority.

Thank you.

 

[NConly]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I think Harvey got it backwards on beans though.

Don't blame Harvey he was quoting the high paid guessers.