# Moon wobble and climate change = flooding



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

More flooding appears to be on the horizon for people in low lying and coastal areas.






NASA: Moon wobble to cause more Earth flooding in the future

What impact will this have for the US and individual states? I hope states are ready for the cost and mess this might cause. Will this impact you? I am lucky, this will not do anything to my area.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Another 'the sky is falling' video. 1:03: "It's nothing new....." True that. The moon has been wobbling since it was formed.


----------



## 7515 (Aug 31, 2014)

All computers will crash at midnight 2000. The world will end, all machines will shutdown. 
I made it throughY2K, I will survive the moon wobble.
BoF.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

We are 35 miles in from the coast, and the topo map shows us as being 33 meters above sea level.
We're good.


----------



## CapitalKane49p (Apr 7, 2020)

Moon Wobble? What a relief. I thought it was the vodka talking.

Godspeed.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

CapitalKane49p said:


> Moon Wobble? What a relief. I thought it was the vodka talking.
> 
> Godspeed.


"When the moon starts to shine like you've had too much wine....."


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I'm still confused on this idea of sea levels rising. If the claim is "glacial melt", then it doesn't make sense.

Ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats. It also takes up more volume. If you forced the ice under the surface of the water, it would take up more volume than it would simply as water. But, it floats. The amount of ice under the surface is equal to the amount of water needed to hold up the ice. That's what "floating" is. It's equilibrium of the system.
When the ice melts to water, it will take up the same amount of volume as the submerged portion when it was ice.

Floating ice that melts into water WILL NOT change the water's overall level.






Assume there is an ice cube in a glass of water. When the ice cube melts, will the water level have risen, fallen, or remained the same? Why?


Ask the experts your physics and astronomy questions, read answer archive, and more.




www.physlink.com


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> I'm still confused on this idea of sea levels rising. If the claim is "glacial melt", then it doesn't make sense.
> 
> Ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats. It also takes up more volume. If you forced the ice under the surface of the water, it would take up more volume than it would simply as water. But, it floats. The amount of ice under the surface is equal to the amount of water needed to hold up the ice. That's what "floating" is. It's equilibrium of the system.
> When the ice melts to water, it will take up the same amount of volume as the submerged portion when it was ice.
> ...


How much of a glacier is underwater?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> How much of a glacier is underwater?


Most of it. The heavier portion is always underwater. That's why they flip occasionally, which is pretty cool to watch.

But, for this exercise, it doesn't matter. The fact that it's floating means it has displaced the total amount of water that it ever will, even after the whole thing melts.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Most of it. The heavier portion is always underwater. That's why they flip occasionally, which is pretty cool to watch.
> 
> But, for this exercise, it doesn't matter. The fact that it's floating means it has displaced the total amount of water that it ever will, even after the whole thing melts.



Um... no.

Let me be a bit more specific: How much of the glaciers _in Montana_ are underwater?


Now, if you're referring to _icebergs_......


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Um... no.
> 
> Let me be a bit more specific: How much of the glaciers _in Montana_ are underwater?
> 
> ...


Yes, it does help when you're specific.
I did mean icebergs.

Do you have opinions about glaciers contributing to the rise? How many of those Montana glaciers melt into the ocean?


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Yes, it does help when you're specific.
> I did mean icebergs.
> 
> Do you have opinions about glaciers contributing to the rise? How many of those Montana glaciers melt into the ocean?







Unless the water evaporates, it will eventually make it to one of two oceans. But glaciers melting _will _raise the water level in the oceans, just like opening a valve in your tub raises the water level in the tub.... if the drain is stopped.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Unless the water evaporates, it will eventually make it to one of two oceans. But glaciers melting _will _raise the water level in the oceans, just like opening a valve in your tub raises the water level in the tub.... if the drain is stopped.


What's the fill rate expectation versus the higher temp evaporation rate?
I'd be curious to see numbers on this. The media likes to show icebergs crumbling, but we never see a slow moving mountain glacier. If that was their concern, why are they not showing it?

I'm not asking you to defend their choices. Just an observation. Could it be that glacial melt isn't actually that much of a concern?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

@Back Pack Hack, I wanted to thank you for calling this difference to my attention. As I mentioned above, it didn't make sense to me why I was seeing icebergs on the media, when icebergs won't contribute anything.

Once you pointed out glaciers, I started searching.
I found this site, and was stunned at the expected total sea level rise if all of the worlds above-sea-level ice melted.
It think it might surprise a lot of people.

1.27 millimeters. Yeah... millimeters.

If there is anything wrong with the math here, I'd like to know.
Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> What's the fill rate expectation versus the higher temp evaporation rate?
> I'd be curious to see numbers on this. The media likes to show icebergs crumbling, but we never see a slow moving mountain glacier. If that was their concern, why are they not showing it?
> 
> I'm not asking you to defend their choices. Just an observation. Could it be that glacial melt isn't actually that much of a concern?


I can't defend someone else's claim as they never publish their sources. Nor can I address why they chose to show what they do.

And it's not just glaciers and icebergs. Snow/ice pack is a real thing as well. Just the buildup of snow and ice on land that doesn't flow like an iceberg. There's a lot of that at the south pole (if you're a globe-tard) or ice mountain ring (if you're a flerfer).


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> I can't defend someone else's claim as they never publish their sources. Nor can I address why they chose to show what they do.
> 
> And it's not just glaciers and icebergs. Snow/ice pack is a real thing as well. Just the buildup of snow and ice on land that doesn't flow like an iceberg. There's a lot of that at the south pole (if you're a globe-tard) or ice mountain ring (if you're a flerfer).


To be clear, I specifically said I wasn't asking you to defend their claims.

Any studies done on this amount snow/ice pack? Is it not part of the ice accumulation spoken of in my linked article?
If the entirety of glacial ice and pole cap melting will only have a 1.27mm impact on sea level rise (according to the article I linked), what's the expected impact of these other sources?

From what I'm reading, the snow/ice is such a small issue... but it's all we ever hear about.
The supposed real threat is "thermal expansion" of the ocean, not ice melt. More personal research is needed on this phenomenon.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

I'm no scientist by any stretch.
But, I am of the opinion, if mankind and all associated machines ceased to exist tomorrow...whatever is happening with planet Earth's climate, oceans and land masses is going to continue to happen.

It always has and it always will.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> To be clear, I specifically said I wasn't asking you to defend their claims.
> 
> Any studies done on this amount snow/ice pack? Is it not part of the ice accumulation spoken of in my linked article?
> If the entirety of glacial ice and pole cap melting will only have a 1.27mm impact on sea level rise (according to the article I linked), what's the expected impact of these other sources?
> ...


Obviously, snow and ice packs on land will contribute to sea levels rising if they melt. They have to. This is 3rd grade science. How much? I have no idea. But it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg.

I still have yet to wrap my head around what the moon's librations has to do with any of this.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

While the study highlights the dire situation facing coastal cities, the lunar wobble is actually a natural occurrence, first reported in 1728. The moon's orbit is responsible for periods of both higher and lower tides about every 18.6 years, and they aren't dangerous in their own right. 

"In half of the Moon's 18.6-year cycle, Earth's regular daily tides are suppressed: High tides are lower than normal, and low tides are higher than normal," NASA explains. "In the other half of the cycle, tides are amplified: High tides get higher, and low tides get lower. Global sea-level rise pushes high tides in only one direction – higher. So half of the 18.6-year lunar cycle counteracts the effect of sea-level rise on high tides, and the other half increases the effect."

But this time around, scientists are more concerned. With sea-level rise due to climate change, the next high tide floods are expected to be more intense and more frequent than ever before, exacerbating already grim predictions. 









NASA: Moon "wobble" in orbit may lead to record flooding on Earth


A wobble in the moon's orbit will raise high tides even higher, exacerbating the devastating effects of sea-level rise.




www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

I fully understand lunar librations and tides. I still can't make the connecting between them and 'global warming', 'climate change' or whatever buzzwords they're using for the next hour.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> But it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg.


Uh, what?
If it's an "equal volume", how could it contribute more? In fact, an equal volume of snow is nowhere near the same mass as an equal volume of ice due to density differences. Snow, even packed snow, has a ton of air in it.
I know we're getting into the weeds here, but this statement doesn't make sense.

It's largely irrelevant though. If the entirety of predicted glacial and polar cap melting (_458.3_ gigatonnes) would equate to a 1.27mm sea level rise, snow and ice packs will be minuscule by comparison.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Uh, what?
> If it's an "equal volume", how could it contribute more? In fact, an equal volume of snow is nowhere near the same mass as an equal volume of ice due to density differences. Snow, even packed snow, has a ton of air in it.
> I know we're getting into the weeds here, but this statement doesn't make sense.
> 
> It's largely irrelevant though. If the entirety of predicted glacial and polar cap melting (_458.3_ gigatonnes) would equate to a 1.27mm sea level rise, snow and ice packs will be minuscule by comparison.


You're confused.

The ice melting from an iceberg will contribute less to the water level than the same ice melt from a glacier.

This is because, by definition, an iceberg is already IN the water. A glacier, by definition, is NOT in the water. Therefor, 1 cubic (UOM) of ice in a glacier that melts will raise the level of the water more than 1 cubic (UOM) of ice that melts from a glacier.

You even said this:



Kauboy said:


> Floating ice that melts into water WILL NOT change the water's overall level.


So now it appears you don't even understand your own statement.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> You're confused.
> 
> The ice melting from an iceberg will contribute less to the water level than the same ice melt from a glacier.
> 
> ...


No... you claimed "it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg".
Now you're trying to shift back to stating "ice on land will contribute more than ice in water". But that's not what you actually said. You made a claim of equivalence on volume alone.

If you want to retract your claim of unequal effect from equal volume, that's fine. We don't need to confuse the issue further.
But if you want to double down on the inaccurate claim and continue to try to pass it off as intended, that'll be funny, but wrong.
Also, you used "glacier" twice in your elaborate comparison statement. Might want to fix that.

We already established that ice not currently in the water will add to the level if it makes it to the sea. But the effect is minimal.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> No... you claimed "it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg".
> Now you're trying to shift back to stating "ice on land will contribute more than ice in water". But that's not what you actually said. You made a claim of equivalence on volume alone.
> 
> If you want to retract your claim of unequal effect from equal volume, that's fine. We don't need to confuse the issue further.
> ...


I know what I said. You either just don't understand it or are feigning ignorance. I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

Maybe a picture a will help.










Assume the two glasses are the same size (volume), and the levels of the water are the same. Also assume the physical volume of the two cubes are the same.

Now.... which ice cube, after if melts, will raise the water level more?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Back Pack Hack said:


> I know what I said. You either just don't understand it or are feigning ignorance. I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.
> 
> Maybe a picture a will help.
> 
> ...


I'm gonna go ahead and just stop you there.
It was clear what you said. It was also clear that we already covered ice that is not currently floating, and its impact.
You made a blanket assertion about two equal volumes that was factually false.
Keep digging the hole though.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

I guess you just are not teachable on the matter.

I'm done here.  Go ahead and gloat and thump your chest and 'claim victory'.

Maybe someday the light will come on.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

There's no argument. We already settled that ice out of the water will contribute.
You tend to get your feels hurt a bit too easily. Try to just enjoy a conversation once in a while.


----------



## 0rocky (Jan 7, 2018)

Auntie said:


> More flooding appears to be on the horizon for people in low lying and coastal areas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As to the question, "Will it impact you." If nothing else it may increase my property value, since I'm up in the mountains. Anyone want to buy a few acres?


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Back Pack Hack said:


> I fully understand lunar librations and tides. I still can't make the connecting between them and 'global warming', 'climate change' or whatever buzzwords they're using for the next hour.


"They" are saying....if there is more water in the areas that typically contain water, like rivers, lakes and oceans (because of global warming)...the wobbling moon, which causes higher tides at times and lower tides at times, will affect the degree of flooding.
Simply put...if I have a glass of water that is half full and rapidly tip the glass on its edge back and forth, the water probably won't come over the top edge of the glass.
The more water I add to that glass, the likelihood of water coming over the top increases with that same motion.
Make sense?


----------



## Bushman (Jun 21, 2021)

We get the same crap here in Canuckistan. Rich people buy land on flood plains, alter the rivers so they can build their mansions. Then when nature happens they blame everything but their stupidity. Not surprising, these are the same idiots running our countries.

Instead of fighting these idiots I push it, shut off the gas...good, i have 5000L tanks in my barn. Lock us down forever...good I live next to 20000 acres of national forest and I own 200 of it. No more meat....good I dont eat your hormone crap anyways.

We need to give these people 1 month of what they want. Let them eat themselves and make sure we dont save them. Let them rot in the cities. 

3 days and the first person would be on the bbq


----------

