The Cause of Ocean Currents and the Jet Stream

[nathanhelfman]

The distancing of the moon as a function of the decrease in the speed of the earth is clear--the distancing, though miniscual, is real and cumulative. What is the corresponding (miniscual?) cumulative decrease in the speed of the earth and what would be the ramifications?

[Bantokfomoki]

@nathanhelfman I don't recall what the slowing rate is for the earth (look it up on Google if interested) but it's very small now. The moon gets pushed to a higher orbit each year by about 3 centimeters. Nothing here to worry about.

[nathanhelfman]

@Bantokfomoki Thanks...I was getting worried about those longer work days. Cheers.

[p71280]

They are not able to see the big picture. They are 2D thinker. We (some of us) are 3D thinkers.

[Barotropic]

I'd suggest reading more on the (many) assumptions made when developing theory of atmospheric and oceanic circulations before relegating it to a disconnect between different scientific disciplines.

[Bantokfomoki]

@Barotropic The disconnect is definitely there. There is apparently no knowledge of the moon as an ocean current cause. I don't know why, but that's the prime mover.

The fundamental laws of physics don't constitute much of an assumption. This is high school stuff yet no mention is made of it by oceanographers or meteorologists. Maybe they're preoccupied with the global warming swindle.

[Barotropic]

@Bantokfomoki First, I am meteorologist. With that you'd be surprised how few meteorologists are "preoccupied" with global warming (climate change). Anyways, just in case you're unaware, assumptions are everywhere in science. What if the phenomenon under consideration is not evolving classically?. Then what? Also be aware that cause and effect relationships in science are very difficult to prove (disprove).

[Bantokfomoki]

@Barotropic The only possible debate here is A) I'm mistaken in thinking they don't understand this ... and B) They don't understand this for 'what' reason.

There is no debate possible about the physics. The moon does cause the ocean currents (along with a few other minor parameters). For this not to be correct ... Newton's laws of motion must be incorrect in this natural system. Newtonian physics trumps all meteorological observations ... if ... they indeed conflict with Newton.

[Barotropic]

@Barotropic Also note that the assumptions made in science are a result of approximations! I've yet to come across an assumption made by a scientist that did not involve an approximation of some kind.

[Bantokfomoki]

@Barotropic They causes listed by NOAA and other official places (like universities) don't approximate the moon's contribution to ocean and air currents ... they omit it entirely. If that is the actual opinion of these "sciences" ... they would have to be downgraded to something less than a science ... something like "optometry" which is something like having someone measure your pants length in WalMart, i.e. what do I need them for? ;o)

[watchmyywhipp]

yay.. nerds fighting.. woo.. 

[JJboy1992]

@watchmyywhipp At least it is more interesting than religious fights on youtube haha

[divisorplot]

Thanks for the brief. Like your logo somewhat i feel maybe the X and Y Z might have something to say. The chi-rho labraum tetramorph polar axis with seasonal inclinations . Letter X also Letter Y. I don't know that person.Like that term dis-connect with moon metaphor for i don't know these disconnected earthlings.Moon in the Moon Michael del la Luna physiology.Primordial androgynous hermetic doctrine XYZ azimuth azote azymous azygous.Yoke-o-know! AZ check the o-zone hole at the nadir earthling!A

[donaldlynn57]

You correct, because gravity of all solar body effected both solid and liquid ( sea & air.)

[aus2045]

This vid makes me sleepy!

[mphello]

Of course, meat-eaters like you hate America and are unpatriotic cowards, guilty of treason, so you have NOTHING to complain about. But, you demand big government arrest people or execute them when it's a law that's in YOUR favor, when it's against behavior that YOU don't personally like but others do. Yet you would hypocritically cry if meat were outlawed, as it ought to be.

[Bantokfomoki]

@mphello Hmmmm .... I post a video about the physics of ocean currents and ... now ... I'm guilty of treason? And ... I'm an unpatriotic coward ... and ... I demand Big Government ... to execute people ... and ... hate America. That's quiet a lot to read into the ocean currents. But then ... some people can read as much from tea leaves and runes and bone rolling. So I guess you must deserve some credibility.

Oh, maybe you're thinking of the thermohaline current. Maybe that hates or eats meat.

[mphello]

@Bantokfomoki

Of course, only an idiot thinks I called you a traitor because you post a video of ocean currents.

You're a traitor, as I said, because of all the mountain of lies you spread and how you vote and everything else that actually interferes with the War on Manmade Climate Change.

And my conclusions about your motivations are MILD - NOTHING - compared to the excrement of leaps of wild speculation you deniers make about "Al Gore illuminati club of rome elite NWO".

[Bantokfomoki]

@mphello  Are you male or female?

[lukemedway]

@mphello thanks for spoiling the comments on this video which I actually found to be quite informative and is pretty basic physics when it is demonstrated so well. What I don't understand is how you've turned this into some sort of anti AGW propaganda. If you subscribe to anything without asking questions and just automatically 'accept' what is 'obvious' (i.e. what you're told) then you require a frontal lobotomy IMO.

@Bantokfomoki many thanks for explaining how this works. Great video.

[youradaftcuntumind]

@mphello global warming is made up propaganda. meat boy

[mphello]

@youradaftcuntumind

Terrorism is made-up propaganda. AGW is real, proven, fact.

Typical conservatives believe anything should be allowed: raping children, eating meat, polluting the planet until future generations starve.

[mphello]

Well, we KNOW that humans are causing the CURRENT steep rise in global average temperature. That is a theory that, like all theories - by definition of the word theory, like theorem is in math - is something proven. Unlike a hypothesis or, of even less stature, a hunch, conjecture, or idea. So THAT'S clearly not what you're arguing.

Your disagreement is with some small subtle point, right?

[Bantokfomoki]

@mphello Is this a joke post? Who on the internet in 2011 doesn't understand that global warming is a bankster swindle? The majority of "airheads" (those who study climate and weather) don't subscribe to man-made GW. Your "proof" has gone "poof" !

This video is not about global warming however. It's about the failure of meteorologists to elucidate the simple Newtonian physics that results in ocean currents and the jet stream. Apparently, they don't know what's happnin'.

[mphello]

@Bantokfomoki

Are YOU a joke?  You cite internet users as some sort of source for the science of anthropogenic global warming?

How about reading the peer-reviewed literature FIRST by actual working scientists, like Dr James Hansen and Dr Benjamin Santer and Dr Richard Alley, before publicly making a fool of yourself?

Welcome to your fellow HIV-AIDS-denialists, moonlanding hoax-believers, homeopaths, astrologists, polygraph-believers, and Holocaust denying crazies.

[Bantokfomoki]

@mphello Thanks, I like hate mail ;o)

I officially deny ... HIV-AIDS & the Holocaust ... but I'm not with the moon-hoax, homeopaths, astrologists, or polygraph believers (although the polygraph probably works on weak-minded individuals who feel guilty ... like yourself).

I'll take Christopher Monckton's side in this issue ... not the banker funded climate scientists you site. And ... as I understand the issue ... the majority of credentialed climate scientists oppose the AGW hypothesis.

[Bantokfomoki]

@mphello PS Are you perhaps with the JREF Forum people. You have their "style". ;o)

[mphello]

@Bantokfomoki

Never heard of the JREF Forum people.

I'll take PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) side on the issue of AGW, who, unlike you deniers with your lies and pretend victimhood and make-believe stories of imaginary persecutions, fight REAL battles against MASSIVE corporate-government collusion: the multitrillion dollar MEAT industry, just for starters. PETA has spoken out about the major contribution to AGW from meat consumption for 30+ years.

[Bantokfomoki]

@mphello  Oh! An animal lover, eh? OK

[mphello]

@Bantokfomoki

No, not really. But it should be outlawed to torture them and breed them unnecessarily if all one has to do is go vegan instead.

Of course, since you never did a hard day of work in your life, and therefore have no original thoughts

(not that ALL thoughts have to be original - in fact, only a tiny proportion 0.1% CAN be - but it's important that that 0.1% exist), I know what you're going to say.

Just like men who rape women really love women, right?

[mphello]

@Bantokfomoki

Doesn't matter if a bunch of retards whose parents can buy them a computer and never read or study anything don't believe in AGW.

The scientists who work in the field have proven it. If you got a proof, then present it at a climate conference and publish your work in a peer-reviewed journal. Until then, you're a fucking wackjob conservaturd lunatic.

[Bantokfomoki]

@mphello

Your reply is typical of AGW extremists. You are the best advertisement for not believing their rubbish.

[1DanConnors]

@Bantokfomoki I like to eat meat; does that make me bad or good? I thought the global warming nuts would stay in the woodwork longer after the Brits were caught faking Russian weather reports at the big global warming circus this year. How about a physical analysis of how the sun's heat on closely approaching comets gradually circularizes their orbits, eventually transforming them into planetoids. This explains the "asteroid belt" much better than the exploding planet theory.

[Bantokfomoki]

@1DanConnors I was just thinking about this question a few months ago ... How can an elliptical orbit become circular? I'll give it some more thought and search the net for other people's ideas.

[It depends on what kind o' meat you're eatin' ... If it's a cow, it's OK ... If it's human, you're probably bad.]

[1DanConnors]

@Bantokfomoki Usually around Earth, sarellite orbits are circularized at apogee by a small delta v maneuver. My thought is that as the comet approached Sol, the huge amount of heat would vaporize millions--maybe billions--of tons of various ices. This vapor would tend to thrust the comet directly away from Sol. Some heavy math to do here; and lately I'm too lazy to do it. Good idea for an IS flight too; do the burn as close to the sun as possible. 50 miles/sec might net 150 miles/sec.

[Bantokfomoki]

@1DanConnors What I would like to discover is something in gravitational mechanics that would change and elliptical orbit into a circular one ... like rotation is locked by tidal forces ... but I'm not optimistic about that.

[1DanConnors]

@Bantokfomoki A popular theory that goes in and out of vogue is that the moon was once part of the Earth. Got knocked loose when a particularly large planetoid plunked us billion of years ago.Its orbit would have to have started out as highly elliptical, but now, somehow, it's nearly circular.

[Bantokfomoki]

@1DanConnors That's something I think about ... how can an elliptical orbit become circular?

[1DanConnors]

@Bantokfomoki Maybe it got popped by other planetoids as it neared the high point of its orbit. Maybe, as it neared its low point, planetoids that would have hit it got sucked into Earth instead becuse of Earth's more powerful gravity field. We know from lookng that it's been hit many times by very large objects. The first billion years or so of Earth's existence must have been pretty rough. Fortunately there was no life to be extinguished.

[Bantokfomoki]

@1DanConnors I gave it some thought and realized that an elliptical orbit would circularize only by tidal forces. Take the moon ... it is being raised to a higher orbit by being pulled by the earth's tidal bulge about 3 cm per year. If it had an elliptical orbit that effect would occur mostly at one focus. When it is raised, it exchanges kinetic energy for potential and goes slower. Therefore it can't shoot out as far, so the secondary focus gets closer. In time, it's circularized.

[1DanConnors]

@Bantokfomoki So, you don't believe all those impact craters had anything to do with circularization?

[Bantokfomoki]

@1DanConnors They may. Whatever hits the moon is most likely to hit it on the side facing it movement relative to the debris field. (Thus, meteorites strike the earth in the early morning hours mostly) Now, if the earth shields it when it's "under" the earth (relative to the sun) ... that might result in a systemic circularization. I'm sure astronomers have considered these possibilities. I really need to look it up to see what the "official" word is on the subject.

[marthamclain]

So cool....! Thanks!

[atrios28]

Informative and important presentation. Essential viewing for every one recovering from the deleterious effects of a formal education. Re-deems science from the scientists - modern priesthood of consensus reality - and re-presents ideas consistent with the latest research & accessible to the lay person. By democratizing information about the planet to arguably it's most important species the site performs a vital public service...and not a moment too soon.

(ReVision YouTube CC Reviews)

[blueydleprechaun]

I really enjoyed your video! Thanks for sharing!

[dragonsight2000]

on youtube check out 1weatheraction's channel as his method takes into account the moon and its magnetic field. have you looked into the thinkings of treating gravity as a push force rather than a pulling force? if so i would like to hear your thoughts on it. i like your videos and website too. :)