Barry Sears wrote: ↑
April 22nd, 2018, 8:24 am
I have looked into different theories and the standard concept that suggests the Earth is slowing and so had 420 days, but this theory is not supported and confirmed by the experts (IERS). Obviously there is a comprehensive review of which I have extracted a couple of lines.
The design-of-time link you gave around post 70 pretty much describes the accepted rate of slowing of spin rate, adding a day to the year every 16 million years or so. Of the lines you quoted (from IERS??), I found no data about past spin rates or past orbital periods. All I saw was a chart of the current rotations per orbit (not number of days) for each planet, which is not a function of only orbital distance. Perhaps the data is in another post. It is simple mathematics to determine that at a 24 hour day, Earth would need to be very close to 10% further from the sun to log 420 days per year. The IERS data doesn't indicate that. Venus needs to be far closer to the sun if that data was relevant. It has only one (-1 actually) rotation per orbit, less than Mercury even.
OK, so you found a reference to an alternative view that suggests Earth orbit degrading into the sun due to some value based on the age of the universe, despite no explanation of how the angular momentum is conserved. The acceleration rate quoted for Earth is 1.4 arcsec/century2
which is a slower change to the number of days per year than has been measured for spin change. I also don't see that 1.4 value referenced outside the site. It is actually a significant effect still, but every reference I find reports no significant drop in orbit.
While this would be a gradual change and not the unprecedented (except for prior volcanic events) abrupt change to the warming rate that is being measured, it nevertheless seems to feed your need to deny human involvement in global warming, like the blame was somehow on you personally.
Not saying this motivation is the case is with you, but it is the vibe I get from adoption of such cherry-picked theories. There are those that accept the science, and even they don't offer any solutions. At best they propose ways to delay the inevitable, which isn't really a solution. Humans really are no more rational than bacteria in a petri-dish of nutrients. We see it, but can't face it.
Xkcd sometimes puts out the best way to visualize real things: https://xkcd.com/1732/
That is the most accurate graph I've seen of the temperature trends of the last 22 millennia. Note the part about data limits around 15700 BC. Compare those trends (especially the line slopes) to the final decades at the end.
Although this appears to be "standard" it is not the only option and as with all options there is supporting maths and physics
Thus, according to the SEC theory the planets spiral toward the Sun with accelerating tangential and angular velocities while their distances from the Sun decrease steadily. The angular (secular) acceleration of the Earth is about 2.8 arcsec/century2 and the orbital radius currently decreases by about 20 meters per year assuming T=14 billion years.
I would like to see the math concerning the conserved angular momentum in this scenario.
You are suggesting that the World has been slowing down at a constant rate over millions and millions of years "Earth spin was enough for 420 days about 600M years ago". This has been discussed previously and once again there is absolutely no supporting data to suggest this at all, it is a very naive assumption of which it is also unsupported by the IERS.
Quite a bit of data, including that used by the design-of-time link you referenced, and yet you choose to turn a blind eye to it (even though it has little to do with global warming, so I'm wondering why). It is also necessary physics since there is a known force resisting the spin and balanced by the very-much measured increase in distance of the moon by about 4cm per year. How is this not supporting data? All those fancy atomic clocks you mention have measured it in the short run. Earth spin was slowing far more than any planet except Mercury which was too close to the sun and apparently found equilibrium in its current state and stopped slowing. Perhaps it will start again after its orbit becomes less elliptical.
Yes, the spin rate varies in short term, but in long term, the changes are all positive, resulting in 23 leap seconds being added to the clocks since 1970, and never did they need to remove one.