The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

This author claims...

...that the balance between gravity and centrifugal force (so-called) affects rocks differently to water.

[Fat Charlie]

Well yeah, water gravity is different than rock gravity. Makes perfect sense to me.

[redneck]

.

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Well yeah, water gravity is different than rock gravity. Makes perfect sense to me.

NASA Operation Icebridge

Gravity.html

However the gravity of the Earth is not homogeneously distributed since different topographic features, such as mountain, plains, valleys or ocean trenches, have different masses.

Since water has less mass than rock it has less gravitational pull.

DC-8 flying over a glacier resting on land. As the aircraft flies over the glacier the instruments are collecting multiple pieces of information: Laser will provide surface imaging of the ice; Radar will provide internal imaging of the ice layers down to the underlying bedrock, and can thus be used to calculate ice thickness; Gravity will measure the difference in mass between flying over dense bedrock and a thick glacial ice sheet. The graphic here shows the drop in gravity as the plane moves from flying over bedrock to flying over ice.[

DC-8 flying over a floating glacier. The laser surface imaging data collected flying over a glacier floating on water will be the same whether the subsurface is bedrock or water. The radar will successfully image through the ice layers, but will not penetrate the water beneath the glacier, so the image return will differ from radar collected over bedrock. These images can be used to detect that there is a wet surface under the ice sheet, and to calculate the surface area, but not the depth. This is where the gravity data can be used to collect essential information. Since water has less mass than bedrock, as the plane moves over the floating glacier the gravity will drop with the reduction in mass. This reduction in gravity can be used to calculate the area of underlying water.

>

[freebeard]

All true, no doubt. Masses vary, acceleration due to gravity does not. That's why they can distinguish the two. How they discriminate a layer of water between the ice and rock, I have no idea.

'Centrifugal force' is really a change in angular momentum. I doubt that varies.

[niky]

Originally Posted by redneck

.





NASA Operation Icebridge

Gravity.html

The irony of quoting a source that doesn't agree with you regarding possible sea level rise.

-

Again: kinda defeats the premise that these people are not taking these forces and factors into account.

[RedDevil]

Gravitational pull is directly related to mass. It pulls just as hard on a tonne of water as it does on a tonne of rock.

A tonne of water takes up more space, as it is less dense. And indeed, the gravitational pull over a large rock formation is higher than over the deep ocean, as all that rock adds its own mass to the pull. That will easily make for a few hundreds of a % difference.

The gravitational constant isn't a constant anymore either!
Scientists determined it has systemic variance.
Something is messing with our gravity...

[freebeard]

That's heavy, man.

Originally Posted by your source

The variations in G are generally thought to result from measurement inconsistencies because G is very difficult to measure, partly due to the fact that gravity is much weaker than the other fundamental forces.

This is true.

There's some good visualization from three to four minutes, then it goes [back] off-topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srmtxK44YXk

[NeilBlanchard]

Related directly to the discussion about measuring gravity:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/index.html

GRACE - Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment





https://youtu.be/ZlQvxBreLng

[sendler]

FCAS in Action – What Happens When a Generator Trips? (or Never let the data get in the way of a good story)
.

Wow! The original article completely tried to bamboozle everybody by using two different scales on the same graph when a 560 MW coal plant suddenly tripped offline in Australia. Here is what was original published.
.
.

.
.
Notice the "100MW" BigF'nBattery in South Australia barely threw out 8 MW for only 3 minutes! Here it is on an equivilent scale.
.
.

.
.
The rest of the thermal backup capacity responded to fill the loss of a tripped 560 MW coal plant within 15 seconds. The batteries are barely visible on this scale, second from the top under the hydro.
.
.

.
.
The scale of our dilemma in replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, and batteries, is not at all yet comprehended by most.

[NeilBlanchard]

I think the Tesla Australian grid is much better than that:

https://insideevs.com/teslas-massive...-1000-per-mwh/