Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

More settled science?



Mars is nearly 9 times the mass of the moon.

Moon radius 1.737 million metres
Mars radius 2.29 million metres

Moon density 3.34 g/cm3
Mars Density 3.93 g/cm3

Ratio of Mars to Moon radius = 1.95
Ratio of Mars to Moon volume (4/3 Pi r^3) = 7.42
Ratio of Mass 7.42 * 3.93/3.34 = 8.73



Wrong again. It varies as the SQUARE of distance.

Now we can answer the question posed

The gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth is about 3.54x1022 N. This force keeps the Earth orbiting around the Sun. The gravitational force from the other planets does slightly affect the Earth’s orbit, but the gravitational pull from the other planets and the Moon is still very small. The gravitational pull of the Moon on the Earth is only 0.55% of the gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth. When they are closest to the Earth, Jupiter only exerts 0.0062% of this force and Mars only 0.00023%.

UCSB Science Line

How will Mars affect the earth - not much.

[jackdale]

Back to the OP's concern.

For those who do not wish to take their yacht through the NWP, Crystal Cruises offers you the opportunity.

Special Offer | Crystal Cruises

A penthouse is only $46,110 for the 32 day trip.

Conditions look favourable.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Locals are saying the weather is not normally this warm for this time of year. Today it is cold. So we have global warming one day and global cooling the next. Go figure.

I guess you are kidding and confusing weather and climate on purpose to make a point, right?

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I hear Mars is approaching the earth in its closest orbit in many lifetimes. Do your think the red planet has an affect on our sphere?

Only if you are a astrologist

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mars is APPROXIMATELY the same mass as the Moon, but 100 times farther away so the height of the Martian water tides on the Earth ought to be about 1 million times smaller because tidal gravitational forces vary as the THIRD power of the separation between the bodies.

Correction jackdale, Mars is a bit bigger than the Moon. I think you confuse Mars with Mercury, which is about the same size as the Moon.

And the relation of gravity and distance is governed by the inverse square law, not the third power. Don't forget gravity is the dent a mass makes in space-time and not a force per se.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack you seem to be missing my point . I am wondering about lunar effect on a century scale we all learned that tides have changed in range ( high to low) on a geological time scale. A couple billion years ago the tidal range was something more in the range of a hundred feet or more whereas on the Washington coast now days the range is more like 15 feet at extreme.
Just a sidereal thing for my mind to do that's all.

A couple of billion years ago? Are you sure? I might not be completely up to date with the geological reseach but as far as I know we are not talking 100s of feet difference. But the sea level was 300 feet lower.

But the reasons for that are geological and not climate.

Originally Posted by StuM

Wrong again. It varies as the SQUARE of distance.

You forgot to mention that tidal forces are differential forces and not direct forces. Consider a sphere with radius R, centred at the origin, which is subject to the gravitational force of a point mass m at r_0, where r_0>> R. At a point r=(x, y, z) the specific (per unit mass) tidal force is the difference between the pull of m at r and the pull of m at the origin. Therefore:

F_T(r)=(Gm/[r_0-r]^3)*(r_0-r)-(GM/r_u^3)*r_0

For points along the line joining the centre of the body to the point mass, let's say on the x axis, the above can be written as:

F_T(x)=(GM/(x_0-x)^2)-(Gm/x_0^2) which is approx 2xGm/x_0^3

See, it is pretty obvious that the Moon is the dominant tidal influence on Earth's tides because the fractional difference in its force across the Earth is magnitudes greater than the fractional difference seen i.e. from the Sun. Therefore Mars'influence on the tides can't even be determined (except for the fun of a mental exercise) because the margin of error is too large, and even the Sun's influence is minuscule.

Sitting back now enjoying the show

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by jackdale

... because tidal gravitational forces vary as the THIRD power of the separation between the bodies.

oops, my bad. jackdale you are right here. The tide-raising force varies inversely as the third power of the distance of the center of mass to the attraction as shown in my earlier posted equations, telling StuM indirectly that it is not inverse square, but inverse the third power.

I did not read jackdales statement properly and assumed wrongly, because he had everything else wrong, jackdale was talking about gravitational force, which is inverse square.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I can only agree. And what about the subterranean volcanoes that are affecting water temps.

Sorry cupcake...that would be like throwing a blown out match into a lake.
Keep trying though...even a broken clock is right twice a day...

[newhaul]

OK now that we got that out of the way what would the reduced gravitational tidal effect of 3.5 cm per year do when you look at a 140 year window? Tides want to know

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK now that we got that out of the way what would the reduced gravitational tidal effect of 3.5 cm per year do when you look at a 140 year window? Tides want to know

Not much - especially compared to apogee and perigee.

On average, the Moon is about 238,800 miles (384,500 km) from the Earth. However, because of the elliptical shape of the Moon's orbit, the actual distance varies throughout the year, between 225,804 miles (363,396 km) at the perigee and 251,968 miles (405,504 km) at the apogee.

That is a 42,108 kilometer difference.

About three or four times a year, the new or full moon coincides closely in time with the perigee of the moon—the point when the moon is closest to the planet. These occurrences are often called 'perigean spring tides.'

The difference between ‘perigean spring tide’ and normal tidal ranges for all areas of the coast is small. In most cases, the difference is only a couple of inches above normal spring tides. The largest difference occurs in certain areas of the Alaska coast where the range of the tide may be increased by around six inches. But considering that these areas have an average tidal range of more than 30 feet, the increase is but a small percentage of the whole (less than a two percent increase).

3.5 cm per year over 140 years is 4.9 meters. A 42,108 kilometer difference results in a 6 inch tide. Something tells me 4.9 meters will not make much difference.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK now that we got that out of the way what would the reduced gravitational tidal effect of 3.5 cm per year do when you look at a 140 year window? Tides want to know

Let's be precise here. It's not 3.5cm it is 38.08(+/-0.04)mm per year. We know that since a nice little mirror was left on the Moon by the Apollo mission in 1970, allowing precise distance measurements.

This gradual recession of the Moon in a prograde orbit away from the Earth is caused by a process called tidal acceleration, which is not only extending the orbit of the moon but is also slowing down Earths rotational speed.

However this will end up in tidal locking, which is the case for the Moon already as the moon is facing us always with the same hemisphere.

Tidal locking will happen eventually for the Earth too. Yes that's right the Earth will show the Moon the same face - or not, because the Sun will be dying long before that happens and then, this, by then big red bastard of Sun, is taking Earth and Moon with it.

You see Earth days were much shorter long time ago (~21hours). However, Earths rotational velocity can be accelerated i.e. by earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, which in return is "pulling" the Moon closer again.

To answer your question I did the math (this is all hypothetical of course): ~5m difference over the last 140 years have caused a change in tides of 1.8096x10^-8m. To bring that in perspective: This is about the thickness of a water molecule!

That was fun. But now I have to stop procrastinating and get back to work ....

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Sorry cupcake...that would be like throwing a blown out match into a lake.
Keep trying though...even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Interestingly enough, there was a warm spot on the north pacific off the Oregon coast that the boys at Noaa was scratching their heads over. It showes up on some of jacks maps from last year. Turn's out there is a massive undersea volcanic ridge directly under that spot.

I find it interesting that the arctic ice reduction is not symmetrical across the arctic. Seems there are warm spots over on the Russian side and the south west side of greenland that accounts for the majority of the ice reduction in the arctic.

There was some discussion that the reduction of the greenland ice was in part do to subsurface or subterranean volcanic heating

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Interestingly enough, there was a warm spot on the north pacific off the Oregon coast that the boys at Noaa was scratching their heads over. It showes up on some of jacks maps from last year. Turn's out there is a massive undersea volcanic ridge directly under that spot.

There was a paper by Nick Bond in regards to the warm spot in the North Pacific, published in the Geophysical Research Letters, which is the peer reviewed journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Bond wrote that the huge patch of water – 1,000 miles in each direction and 300 feet deep – had contributed to Washington’s mild 2014 winter and might signal a warmer summer. Ten months later, the blob was squished up against the coast and extending about 1,000 miles offshore from Mexico up through Alaska, with water about 2 degrees Celsius warmer than normal. Bond's study found that it was caused by a persistent high-pressure ridge that caused a calmer ocean during two winters, so less heat was lost to cold air above.

No volcanoes involved, I'm afraid.

(@Anyone who wants to - in return - quote Maya Tolstoy's study published in the Geophysical Research Letters. Please before you do, read carefully what conclusions the authors of that study came to.)

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I find it interesting that the arctic ice reduction is not symmetrical across the arctic. Seems there are warm spots over on the Russian side and the south west side of greenland that accounts for the majority of the ice reduction in the arctic.

There was some discussion that the reduction of the greenland ice was in part do to subsurface or subterranean volcanic heating

There was a team led by Dr. Jennifer MacKinnon of the University of California in San Diego studying this phenomenon in the Arctic. She came to the conclusion that the cause is a layer of warm water that is saltier and therefore denser than water at the surface. Shrinking sea ice is exposing more water to the air and therefore this warm, salty puddle gets stirred upwards.

No volcanoes involved here either I'm afraid

However here is the funny part. The two phenomena you mentioned are connected! Just look here at a study by Qinghua Ding et.al. of Monash University

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

... like throwing a blown out match into a lake...

Nice analogy. Can I use it?

Note to myself: Stay out of these pseudo-scientific discussions, sit back and enjoy the show!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

... You forgot to mention that tidal forces are differential forces and not direct forces. Consider a sphere with radius R, centred at the origin, which is subject to the gravitational force of a point mass m at r_0, where r_0>> R. At a point r=(x, y, z) the specific (per unit mass) tidal force is the difference between the pull of m at r and the pull of m at the origin. Therefore:

F_T(r)=(Gm/[r_0-r]^3)*(r_0-r)-(GM/r_u^3)*r_0

For points along the line joining the centre of the body to the point mass, let's say on the x axis, the above can be written as:

F_T(x)=(GM/(x_0-x)^2)-(Gm/x_0^2) which is approx 2xGm/x_0^3

See, it is pretty obvious that the Moon is the dominant tidal influence on Earth's tides because the fractional difference in its force across the Earth is magnitudes greater than the fractional difference seen i.e. from the Sun. Therefore Mars'influence on the tides can't even be determined (except for the fun of a mental exercise) because the margin of error is too large, and even the Sun's influence is minuscule.

Sitting back now enjoying the show

Quoting Harry Belafonte :

... It was clear as mud but it covered the ground
And the confusion made the brain go 'round.
I went and ask a good friend of mine,
Known to the world as Albert Einstein.
He said "Son, from the beginning of time and creativity
There existed the force of relativity
Pi r square and a minus ten means a routine only when
The solar system in one light year
Make the Hayden planetarium disappear
So if Mt Everest doesn't move
I am positive that it will prove

That the woman piaba and the man piaba
And the Ton Ton call baka lemon grass,
The lily root, gully root, belly root uhmm,
And the famous grandy scratch scratch ...

[SailOar]

Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn’t warmed | University of Washington

The waters surrounding Antarctica may be one of the last places to experience human-driven climate change. New research from the University of Washington and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds that ocean currents explain why the seawater has stayed at roughly the same temperature while most of the rest of the planet has warmed.

The new study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers. Observations and climate models show that the unique currents around Antarctica continually pull deep, centuries-old water up to the surface – seawater that last touched Earth’s atmosphere before the machine age, and has never experienced fossil fuel-related climate change. The paper is published May 30 in Nature Geoscience.

“With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on,” said lead author Kyle Armour, a UW assistant professor of oceanography and of atmospheric sciences. “We show that it’s for really simple reasons, and ocean currents are the hero here.”

Gale-force westerly winds that constantly whip around Antarctica act to push surface water north, continually drawing up water from below. The Southern Ocean’s water comes from such great depths, and from sources that are so distant, that it will take centuries before the water reaching the surface has experienced modern global warming.

Other places in the oceans, like the west coast of the Americas and the equator, draw seawater up from a few hundred meters depth, but that doesn’t have the same effect.

“The Southern Ocean is unique because it’s bringing water up from several thousand meters [as much as 2 miles],” Armour said. “It’s really deep, old water that’s coming up to the surface, all around the continent. You have a lot of water coming to the surface, and that water hasn’t seen the atmosphere for hundreds of years.”

The water surfacing off Antarctica last saw Earth’s atmosphere centuries ago in the North Atlantic, then sank and followed circuitous paths through the world’s oceans before resurfacing off Antarctica, hundreds or even a thousand years later.

Delayed warming of the Antarctic Ocean is commonly seen in global climate models. But the culprit had been wrongly identified as churning, frigid seas mixing extra heat downward. The study used data from Argo observational floats and other instruments to trace the path of the missing heat.

“The old idea was that heat taken up at the surface would just mix downward, and that’s the reason for the slow warming,” Armour said. “But the observations show that heat is actually being carried away from Antarctica, northward along the surface.”

In the Atlantic, the northward flow of the ocean’s surface continues all the way to the Arctic. The study used dyes in model simulations to show that seawater that has experienced the most climate change tends to clump up around the North Pole. This is another reason why the Arctic’s ocean and sea ice are bearing the brunt of global warming, while Antarctic waters are largely oblivious.

“The oceans are acting to enhance warming in the Arctic while damping warming around Antarctica,” Armour said. “You can’t directly compare warming at the poles, because it’s occurring on top of very different ocean circulations.”

Knowing where the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes, and identifying why the poles are warming at different rates, will help to better predict temperatures in the future.

“When we hear the term ‘global warming,’ we think of warming everywhere at the same rate,” Armour said. “We are moving away from this idea of ‘global warming’ and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents.”

.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, not a hard concept if the theory that natural forces support a cooling trend was a scientific fact or widely-accepted theory. But it's not. When you repeatedly represent it as such, and then posters like me discover that your purported "fact" is widely disputed within the scientific community, then your assertions become less reliable. We just saw this pattern repeated in your colloquy with Sailorchic over the disputed science over the impact of solar variability on climate. Your evidence is usually well-supported, but your constantly overstating its level of acceptance is more often than not misleading. I'm sure it's frustrating for you but, under the circumstances, the continued skepticism is also quite understandable.

Originally Posted by jackdale

More vague unsupported assertions. Can be have some substance instead of this mush?

Until then I get something meaningful from you I will spend my time and effort elsewhere.

Entirely your choice, and should you opt to follow through with another promised departure, it might save a lot of time others have been spending providing a more balanced view of the current state of the science. It might also cut down on some of the frustration. Others schooled up on the science have managed to be persuasive, and from both sides of the issue I might add. But participation is obviously voluntary.

The scientific theory that the absence of anthropogenic sources would result in a cooling trend is certainly supported by the evidence as you point out. But so is the scientific theory that we are in a long-term natural warming cycle since the end of the LIA. You endorse only the former and ignore the latter. If this repeated assertion of yours is so widely-accepted that it justifies disregarding the contrary view, then it should be all too easy to debunk with a bit of analysis contrasting the two theories.

You have continually asserted that solar variability has little or no impact on climate, and have cited evidence in support. Sailorchic's evidence suggests otherwise, and she cites scientists from NOAA & NASA in support. What is "mush" about that?

Which of these assertions do you believe are "vague, unsupported, and non-substantive?" What exactly is not "meaningful" about pointing out that many of these theories appear to have less certainty than you have been representing? Surely the science blogs don't allow you to indulge such one-sided views without challenge, why should we?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn’t warmed | University of Washington

The last para. of this article seems instructive:

“When we hear the term ‘global warming,’ we think of warming everywhere at the same rate,” Armour said. “We are moving away from this idea of ‘global warming’ and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents.”

Like the Medieval Warming Period? The explanation I've always read is that this was merely a regional phenomenon, but this "new" evidence suggests that such regional phenomena are in fact influenced by global events. So is science back to having to explain a warming trend in pre-industrial Europe when CO2 levels were much lower?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

The last para. of this article seems instructive:

“When we hear the term ‘global warming,’ we think of warming everywhere at the same rate,” Armour said. “We are moving away from this idea of ‘global warming’ and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents.”

Like the Medieval Warming Period? The explanation I've always read is that this was merely a regional phenomenon, but this "new" evidence suggests that such regional phenomena are in fact influenced by global events. So is science back to having to explain a warming trend in pre-industrial Europe when CO2 levels were much lower?

You don't get it. In SO and JD's world:

Current regional patterns of warming are symptomatic of dangerous "Global Warming" aka "Climate Change"

Previous regional patterns of warming and both previous and current regional patterns of cooling don't fit the narrative and are therefore insignificant.