Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

G.warming: something to wobble about

  1. Oct 20, 2003 #1
    Hi, a hypothetical

    I'm not sure whether this question/discussion has been posted but i am assuming it has and I can't find any reference to it....but

    If we for a moment assume hypothetically that global warming predictions are reasonably accurate and we also assume that we are unable to stop the ice on the south pole from melting.

    In a physics context what would be the result to the planets orbit, rotation with out the weight of the ice on the south pole?

    I would assume it to be quite dramtic.... any thoughts on this subject?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 21, 2003 #2

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The ice melting from the poles would become water in the oceans. The water would have the same weight as the ice did, so the Earth would still weigh the same. So the effect on orbit would be nill. Rotation could be effected sumwhat, due to the fact that the ice currently gathered together at the poles would be distributed around the globe (and away from the axis of rotation). This should slow the rotation, but probably not enough to be detected without instrumentaiton.
     
  4. Oct 21, 2003 #3
    On the issue on global warming. I have always understood that climate changes. Throughout the history of earth, there have been moments of warmth and perpetual days of extreme cold. Some scientist say that this is a natural occurrence and that what ever we do, the earth will still warm up whether it be 20 with continued co2 emissions or 100 years with a total overhaul of emissions. Some say that while it may be a natural occurrence we are accelerating that. My question is, why should the United States spend billions of dollars trying to cut back on CO2 emissions while it is inevitable that the climate will eventually change (assuming that my sources are correct)?? Wouldn't that money be better spent on preparing our crops (via genetic engineering) and infrastructure on the inevitability of climate change?
     
  5. Oct 21, 2003 #4
    That is true, it would be wise to put more money into agricultural technologies. However, you must remember that the world is a lot bigger than the United States. Such technology would probably not be applied on a global level due to the financial restraints of developing countries. Generally, developed countries are more responsible for the emition of gases associated with the acceleration of global warming. We must remember that our actions have consequences on a global level, and so we must therefore ensure that we can aid less fortunate countries when the time comes.
     
  6. Oct 23, 2003 #5
    it may also be woth keeping in mind that whilst it is true that the earth has experienced fluctuations in temperature that these where indeed natural events and not man made like the problems of today.

    At no time in any historical sense has there been the mix of chemicals in the atmosphere as we have today.

    At no other time has the removal of forrests been so pronounced during a time of stable
    climate. SO in the middle of a stable climate epoch man seems to be creating an instability in the envioronment. This has never happened before.

    Unless one assumes that man at one or more time existed in the past and made the same mistake and self extinguished himself.
     
  7. Oct 23, 2003 #6
    An extreme example of the above could be our use of synthetic or artificial light.

    If one thinks about all those light globes delivering heat. Stadium lighting, household lighting,
    High rise office block lighting.

    The amount of heat that is generated by artificial light alone would add to the retained temperature of the planet.

    Conservation of energy would suggest that every day we exist we are adding heat to this planet by our technologies. So what happens to all this added heat.

    Never before has the earth experienced the advent of artificial electricity.

    How can the natural cycles of the planet accomodate our being so smart?
     
  8. Oct 23, 2003 #7
    Back to the original thread

    I just did a little fact finding

    The amount of ice on the south pole (antartic)

    29 million cubic kilometres of ice

    Can any one tell us all what a cubic kilometer of very cold ice may weigh?

    The earths total mass is 597.42*10^22 kilograms

    I'm not sure what this figure means

    Two figures for sea level rise.....25 metres and 60 metres globally if the polar ice melted.


    So if we find the value for the ice weight and compare to earth mass we can see the dynamics involved at a rudementary level.

    Can any one help with the maths?
     
  9. Oct 25, 2003 #8
    1 km3 of water would weigh roughly 1012 kg, and depending on the density of the ice, would be about 93% of that.
     
  10. Oct 25, 2003 #9
    GRACE2002: A Scientific Odyssey

    Seeing gravity the way I am, has opened new doors of perception that I had not seen before.

    Having been able to arrive at a comprehensive understanding has also revealled the importance of how we might tackle the problems we are facing today and what information we can use to arrive at it. For instance mass concentration and gravity implications. The dimensional aspect of gravity inthis case is important to a scale undertanding and here we are just dealing with earth. Much is being learnt about the moon and soon other planets.

    Today gravitational wave generation and the shaking of the fabric , is helping us to build on the undertsanding of structures, and failures of events in the cosmos. We are at interesting times for sure.



    Grace 2002: A Scientific Odyssey

    The measurements from GRACE have important implications for improving the accuracy of many scientific measurements related to climate change. Substantive advances in the interpretation of satellite altimetry, synthetic aperture radar interferometry,and digital terrain models, covering large land and ice areas used in remote sensing applications and cartography, will result from the improved gravitational field measurements provided by GRACE.These techniques provide critical input to many scientific models used in oceanography, hydrology, geology and related disciplines, and,for this reason, the Earth Science community eagerly anticipates the GRACE launch.The next few pages present some of the expected scientific applications.

    There is also much that can be learnt from understanding helio and astronomical seismology in regards to the information that is evident in the shaking of the fabric of space. How will we read the gravitational picture that is fluctuating around us? What clues in seismology can be understood that information will be present in the gravitational field around earth? This allows us the capability of predicitons before hand(?), much like we do in regards to the storms on the sun and what is being transmitted to earth right now.

    On the other side of the sun the issues of solar flares can be read from the very edge of the sun's vibration? this gives us advance notice. Also sound analogies, are great for helping us understand plasmatic features in their movements(supergravity)?

    Helio and Astronomical Seismology

    Sol
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2003
  11. May 16, 2004 #10
    it may also be woth keeping in mind that whilst it is true that the earth has experienced fluctuations in temperature that these where indeed natural events and not man made like the problems of today.
    THE EARTHS BIOSPHERE TEMPERATURE WILL CONTINUE TO FLUCTUATE AND WOULD HAVE DONE SO EVEN IF HOMO SAPIENS HAD NEVER EXISTED.
    MAN IS NATURAL OR DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY? ALL THE EFFECTS OF HIS EXISTENCE HAPPEN ACCORDING TO NATURAL CHEMICAL PROCESSES.

    At no time in any historical sense has there been the mix of chemicals in the atmosphere as we have today.
    OR WILL EXIST IN THE FUTURE. SO YOUR POINT IS …??

    At no other time has the removal of forrests been so pronounced during a time of stable climate. SO in the middle of a stable climate epoch man seems to be creating an instability in the envioronment. This has never happened before.
    REALLY! SO THE FELLING OF 90% OF THE FORESTS OF EUROPE TO MAKE BUILDINGS, SHIPS ETC IN THE MIDDLE AGES DIDN’T HAPPEN THEN??
    AND HOW DO YOU DEFINE FOREST? DO YOU INCLUDE ALL THE TREE PLANTING WHICH TAKES PLACE EVERY YEAR AS FOREST COVER?
    AS FOR YOUR CLAIM ABOUT A STABLE CLIMATE EPOCH: WHAT ABOUT THE VERY WARM PERIOD PRIOR TO 1350 FOLLOWED BY THE 500 YEAR LITTLE ICE AGE IMMEDIATELY AFTER?
    THE ENVIRONMENT IS UNSTABLE, UNLESS JUDGED OVER VERY SMALL TIME SCALES SUCH AS A HUMAN LIFE TIME, IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE.
    YOU ENDOW HOMO SAPIENS WITH AN IMPORTANCE, WHICH BELIES HIS ACTUAL EFFECTS.

    Unless one assumes that man at one or more time existed in the past and made the same mistake and self extinguished himself.
    PARDON????
     
  12. Jun 16, 2004 #11
    Preach it Berty

    the original premise of this thread was "If we for a moment assume hypothetically that global warming predictions are reasonably accurate and we also assume that we are unable to stop the ice on the south pole from melting." The premise is incorrect, Global warming is not happening and therefore it is irrelavent to discuss what could happen.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: G.warming: something to wobble about
Loading...