Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
So I basically have no respect for the topic - it's a free-for-all.




as long as we cant actually see whats going on around us
every thing looks the same.

what happens when you use water to replace oil with?
would you see any sea level rise in the near future
or would it be a delayed reaction.

do you think that the oil that is pumped out of the ground is replaced by air?

if the ostrich above pulls his head out of the sand
would the hole in the sand be filled with water if it rains?

would a oil well naturally fill with ground water after oil is removed?

so , the volume of oil that is being pumped out of the ground each day is the volume of sea level rise that we would have seen if water was not replacing the oil.

have the sea levels dropped by the volume of water that has replaced all of the oil we have ever pumped out of the ground?

what would be the volume of all of the oil we have pumped out of the ground.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Volume of oil: 500 km^3

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html


Area of oceans: 4e8 km^2

If you spread that oil over the ocean, it'd be 500km^3/4e8km^2 = 1mm


So no, water lost by displacing oil doesn't affect sea level rise.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I shouldnt say anything but to be honest the number would be more like .44 mm in receding sea level.

the best estimate I found was
1 trillion barrels @ .16 cu/meter per barrel
pumped out to date.
ScienceDaily (May 8, 2009)

and the earths surface area covered by water is
361,132,000 sq km

= 361 T m^2/ 160 T m^2 (1 mm high) = .44 mm height



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
heres a interesting web site that has a calculator on it that is easy to use.

http://www.plumbset.co.uk/waterexpansion.asp

at the following temperatures 1 litre of water will expand to:

0 C = 1.000 l
15 C = 1.001 l
25 C = 1.002 l
30 C = 1.003 l
35 C = 1.005 l
40 C = 1.006 l
45 C = 1.008 l
50 C = 1.01 l
55 C = 1.013 l
65 C = 1.018 l
75 C = 1.025 l

of course I would say that we would all pretty much be dead around 55 C so why worry with anything higher than that because a body core temp of 105 F or 40.5 C will kill you.


anyway the earth itself would not be at that high a temp and we could be in underground shelters where the ground is way cooler than the air or water on the surface.











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
It doesn't matter if it's 0.4mm or 4mm, still negligible.

Yea a 20 degree temperature rise would sure have an effect. But as you said it'd kill so much life that sea level would be the least of our worries.

Going underground wouldn't help because the heat would travel into the ground over time. If we had colder winters than we do now, it could give the underground a chance to
cool off and maintain a lower temperature.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Going underground wouldn't help because the heat would travel into the ground over time


the next time your in 100 degree F weather , go outside and stick a meat thermometer in the ground.

you'll most likely get around a 55 F - 65 F reading.

your going to have a really hard time raising the underground temperature to 100 degrees F.



http://waterheatertimer.org/Average-temperature-of-shallow-ground-water.html




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
your going to have a really hard time raising the underground temperature to 100 degrees F.


That's because the ground is cooled during the nighttime (near the surface) and during the winter deeper down. If you check it in the daytime it's still cold from the night before, but check the same point at night and you might find it's hotter than during the day.

So you could gain something, but it won't be as cold as it is now unless the nights and winters are even colder. You could improve it further by going deeper with time as the cold region moves downwards, then coming back to the surface during the night/winter.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


as depicted in the above image there is a slight seasonal temperature variation of around 8 F when at the 12 ft depth.

and the variation increases as you move into the shallower depths , 5 ft , 2 ft , surface.

this is why I posted the 55 F - 65 F temperature range in my earlier post.

this is also why people are building there survival shelters underground , and underground shelter that is watertight is protected from the environment , saves the environment after it has already been destroyed and becomes a tornado , hurricane , nuclear blast shelter
all in one slick move.

take a gander at this bloaks dugout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6D2Hpvu_lw&feature=related

24 C all year long.
no heating or cooling bills.

















3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
[quote=paul]

That won't protect you from a 20degC average increase. Everything will got up 20degC. Including the underground average temperature - higher highs and higher lows.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
sure it will , it does it every year winter / summer.

20 C is only 68 F and there are plenty of places where temperatures fluctuate much greater than that.

it would probably take several thousands of years to raise the earths ground temperature 68 F anyway.

the earth will still be turning around and cooling the earth during the night.

those who stay on the surface would mostly be dead along with most life on the surface of the earth after only a few degrees temperature rise anyway , the only ones that will survive would be the ones that can live and grow food underground.

lets put it this way you would stand a much better chance of survival below ground than above.

this is why the rich and governments are building large bases underground that have the ability to produce food.

they might act stupid , but they got your vote didnt they.










3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
it would probably take several thousands of years to raise the earths ground temperature 68 F anyway.

At 12ft depth, your graph says it would only take a few months.

Quote:

survive would be the ones that can live and grow food underground.

That's surely the trickiest part. It would take a lot of power to grow food without sunlight. Unless you can somehow let sunlight in without letting too much heat in with it. Just blocking the IR from the sunlight would make it a greenhouse.


Quote:

lets put it this way you would stand a much better chance of survival below ground than above.


If you have to spend stupendous amounts of power on grow lights, then maybe you'd do better to spend it on air conditioning instead, and just live above ground, with plants in air conditioned "greenhouses".

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: paul
sure it will , it does it every year winter / summer.

20 C is only 68 F and there are plenty of places where temperatures fluctuate much greater than that.

it would probably take several thousands of years to raise the earths ground temperature 68 F anyway.

Isn't this about an increase of 20 degrees C (68F), not an actual temperature of 20C?
Edit (thanks redewenur): an increase of 20C would be an increase of 39 degrees F, not 68. Think about an increase of 20 Kelvins instead, right?
....


Realistically it should only be an increase of 4-8 degrees C; but whatever, it still seems to happen quite rapidly....
===

Paul, you should remember this below, eh?
But hey! Thanks for that graph of ground-water temperatures. It made me wonder how soil bacteria and fungi (and their mutualistic relationships with crop roots) will adjust as warming accelerates.
~Cheers!
=== .. ===

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25277#Post25277

Quote:
Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters, 29(8), 1167.

Table 1. Mean Heat Flux into the Continental Lithosphere and the Corresponding Heat Gained in Fifty Year Intervals Over the Last Five Hundred Years

Time Interval Mean Heat Flux (mW m-2) Heat Gain (10^21 J)


As you can see from the above table [see link], if graphed it would really have a dramatic rise, shaped much like a "hockey stick."
Right?
===

Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310.
"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."

".... Our conclusions about the heat gain of the lithosphere, the last major component of Earth's climate system, are consistent with those presented by Levitus et al. [2001]. While the estimates may eventually be refined, their fundamental implication remains clear: all major components of the Earth's climate system have warmed over the last half century. This further supports the conclusion that the observed warming of Earth during the last fifty years has been truly global and extends upward into the atmosphere as well as downward into the Earth's oceans, cryosphere and continental crust."

~ wink

Last edited by samwik; 07/26/11 08:10 AM. Reason: conversions!

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Isn't this about an increase of 20 degrees C (68F), not an actual temperature of 20C?
Edit (thanks redewenur): an increase of 20C would be an increase of 39 degrees F, not 68.




20 C is 68 F

Im really surprised that you and red didnt know that.
a simple google search would have shown you.

the graph would resemble more of a zig zagged line or curve.

1950–2000 39.1 9.1
1900–1950 29.1 6.8
1850–1900 18.0 4.2
1800–1850 14.2 3.3
1750–1800 10.0 2.3
1700–1750 7.6 1.8
1650–1700 4.9 1.1
1600–1650 3.5 0.8
1550–1600 1.9 0.4
1500–1550 1.0 0.2

more like a ever increasing curve with a steeper curve at the end.
I dont see any straight line for the hockey stick handle.

Samwik , all those numbers are really nice , but so that
myself and readers might further understand would you mind converting those numbers to ground temperature changes.

I'll bet there is only a degree or two change if that much.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
At 12ft depth, your graph says it would only take a few months.




at the 12 ft depth the graph shows only a 10 F fluctuation


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
But hey! Thanks for that graph of ground-water temperatures. It made me wonder how soil bacteria and fungi (and their mutualistic relationships with crop roots) will adjust as warming accelerates.


warming of the soil should stimulate most food crops and the roots will possibly reach further down to take advantage of the warmer ground further down.

you can simulate a warming climate by putting a black plastic cover over the ground where plants are growing.

the roots like hot ground better.

so root crops like carrots and potatos and peanuts etc should do well in a warming climate.

I think that a optimistic approach to the climate change is better , now that I fully understand that no government or influential organization actually gives a hoot.

so buy a piece of ground , dig a big hole , build a watertight home , and have your green houses above ground.

the plants will love your CO2 and the heat , and you will love the food and the Oxygen and the free air conditioning.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Isn't this about an increase of 20 degrees C (68F), not an actual temperature of 20C?
Edit (thanks redewenur): an increase of 20C would be an increase of 39 degrees F, not 68.




20 C is 68 F

Im really surprised that you and red didnt know that.
a simple google search would have shown you.

Simple google searches can make us think too simple.

It's a common mistake, as I demonstrated; but from your view, then an increase of 0 degrees C would be the same as an increase in 32 degrees F, or a decrease of 10 degrees C would be an increase of 12 degrees F.

Just look at your graphic. Going from 0C to 20C (an increase of 20 degrees) moves one from 32 to 68 degrees F., so that would be an increase of 36 degrees.

One degree F = 9/5 degree C;
so 20C (9/5) = 36F... (whoops, not 39 degrees; but not 68 either).

~ wink


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
but from your view, then an increase of 0 degrees C would be the same as an increase in 32 degrees F, or a decrease of 10 degrees C would be an increase of 12 degrees F.


I see you have been taking lessons from kallog , LOL.

no , an ((( INCREASE of 0 degrees )))

WOULD NOT BE AN INCREASE.

this is what I said.

Originally Posted By: paul
20 C is only 68 F and there are plenty of places where temperatures fluctuate much greater than that.


when I look at my ACTUAL side by side C|F thermometer it reads the same as the thermometer image I posted below.



I know your never wrong so maybe you just misunderstood part of it.

what I posted was not a temperature increase , I only said that 20 C is 68 F

kallog was the one who suggested a 20 C rise in temps.

Quote:
It's a common mistake, as I demonstrated;


I agree , we should pay more attention to what we are posting about.

lets just say for instance that where you live there is a average temperature increase of 8 C

and you live in a area that had a average high of 40 C
(104 f) but you now have a average high of 48 C (118.4)

that would be a temperature increase of 8 C OR 14.4 F

it doesnt sound like much but you could not survive over a long period of time unless you could cool down your bodies core temperature.

thats why going underground would be beneficial to people wishing to survive the heat.

lets just think about this 1 thing.
power companies will not continue to supply electricity to people who cannot work because of the heat.
because they wont be able to pay their bill.

so you might have an air conditioner but what good would it do you?

one other point to consider , power companies wont deliver power to only a few people who can afford the bill , unless the few people agree to pay the millions every month to make up the difference.

and if you have a emergency generator , how will you get more gas to run it when you run out of gas.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: paul
your going to have a really hard time raising the underground temperature to 100 degrees F.

That's because the ground is cooled during the nighttime (near the surface) and during the winter deeper down.

The other part of the story is that rock is a very very good insulator.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: preearth
The other part of the story is that rock is a very very good insulator.

Actually rock isn't a very good insulator. In cold climates they have a lot of trouble with rocks that pop up out of the ground over the winter. This is because a rock that has its top on the surface cools down to the air temperature and the bottom surface gets down below freezing allowing ice to form under it. The expansion of the ice causes the rock to pop up.

However, rock is a good heat storage medium. If you have a large mass of it, it takes a long time for it to heat up and cool down. So things buried in rock tend to have a uniform temperature through the seasonal changes on the surface.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
O.K., so the "very, very" is stretching it a bit. But "rock" is a good insulator;

                       W/(m.K)
Asbestos-cement board  0.744
Brick dense            1.31
Fireclay brick @ 500C  1.4
Granite                1.7 - 4.0
Gravel                 0.7
Mica                   0.71
Limestone              1.26 - 1.33


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5