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
0 registered (), 44 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#43887 - 06/02/12 02:43 AM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Mike Kremer]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
700 kilometers


Im just curious if all the water were to be above ground
if its elevation would be 400 ft above nile river elevation !!

from what I can tell an apx guess would be

1145 ft


volume of a sphere v=4/3 x (pi x r3)
v=4/3 x (pi x r^3)

700 km = 434 miles

434 miles
434 x 5280 = 2291520 ft
d=2291520 ft
r=1145760 ft


r^3 = 1504114746494976000

pi x r^3 = 4722920303994224640

4722920303994224640 / 3 = 1574306767998074880

1574306767998074880 x 4 = 6297227071992299520

v= 6297227071992299520 cu ft

surface area of the earth

a=4 x (pi x r2)

7926 miles
41849280 ft
r = 20924640
r^2 = 437840559129600
pi x r2 = 1374819355666944
4x(pi x r2)= 5499277422667776 sq ft

6297227071992299520 / 5499277422667776 = 1145.10 ft


wow , that means the earth must have been really hot back
when the pyramids were sitting almost underwater in an ocean with an elevation of 400 ft above the nile river's current elevation.

because it was already in the process of evaporating its ground water.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
.
#43892 - 06/04/12 10:18 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
A mineralogist whose name I have forgotten calculated that there could be more water locked up in the wadsleyite in the mantle than in all the world’s oceans. If I remember rightly, wadsleyite occurs between about 400 and 500 kilometres depth.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#43893 - 06/04/12 11:03 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
if we think about the water molecule H2 and O

and we consider that almost everything has hydrogen in it
we could even account for the height of the waters during
Noah's flood in the Bible.

ie...
as long as there were enough Oxygen molecules to bind to the Hydrogen molecules.

suppose hydrogen gasses were released as the solid rock became liquid magma as the earth heated up in the past.

these gasses would travel to the earths surface and if there were enough Oxygen molecules and a spark (lightning) there would be an explosion and then even more water.

if this is possible then the Bibles account for the height of the waters that covered everything on the earth to a height of 15 cubits above everything would be a feasible height.

Im not trying to start a argument here , just pointing out that the Bibles account would be feasible if the above were possible.

heres a very interesting read I found that covers the volume
of hydrogen in rock.

Quote:
A NASA exobiology/evolutionary biology grant will enable Freund to pursue this research


http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/deep-hydrogen/




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43897 - 06/05/12 12:33 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Mike Kremer]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
suppose hydrogen gasses were released as the solid rock became liquid magma as the earth heated up in the past.


Could we be be finding a way in which oceans could have formed during/after Pre's collision scenario?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#43901 - 06/05/12 01:06 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
I think that pre's collision would have consumed all the oxygen really fast through combustion.
so no this would not allow for the oceans forming because there
would not be enough oxygen to bind with the hydrogen.

this could be a way that the oceans formed as long as there was
oxygen producing life on the earth such as plants.

I think that what is important is that this shows that the flood that is described in Genesis could have happened from a scientific / physical standpoint.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43903 - 06/05/12 02:29 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul where do you get your numbers from above

The radius of earth is 6400 km or 4000 miles

You seem to have lost a decimal point :-)

Next 80% of the earth's water is surface water the other 20% is either ground water or atmospheric water vapour.

These are Graces numbers (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WeighingWater/weighing5.php)

The earth's total amount of water is about 344 million cubic miles made up of

315 million cubic miles is seawater
9 million cubic miles is groundwater
7 million cubic miles is frozen in polar ice caps

From => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Quote:

The melting of small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, would increase sea level around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet or the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 7.2 m or 61.1 m of sea level rise, respectively


So if 7 million cubic miles only lifts see level by 61-70m then it is reasonable to assume 9 million cubic miles of groundwater will only lift it by around same say 80m.

Altogether if the poles all meleted and all the groundwater was lifted we have maxium of 150 meters or 400 ft so just at the top of the pyramids.

Given the ground heights around the middle east there would still be a hell of a lot of land above water.

Thats just going off know facts without any calcs but if you redo and recheck your calcs you should hopefully agree with those figures.


Edited by Orac (06/05/12 02:56 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#43904 - 06/05/12 03:52 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Paul where do you get your numbers from above

The radius of earth is 6400 km or 4000 miles

You seem to have lost a decimal point :-)


diameter of the earth -- google

12,756.2 kilometers

Quote:
12756.32 kilometers or 7926.41 miles at the equator


and here is what I wrote ;-)

Quote:
surface area of the earth

a=4 x (pi x r2)

7926 miles



Quote:
You seem to have lost a decimal point :-)


it does not look that way to me , perhaps you didnt read or follow the post correctly.


----------------- next ----------------------

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/10/if-you-put-all-the-water-on-ea.html


Quote:
Put all the water on this planet into a single sphere and it would have a diameter of about 860 miles, says the United States Geological Survey.


and again here is what I said

Quote:
volume of a sphere v=4/3 x (pi x r3)
v=4/3 x (pi x r^3)

700 km = 434 miles

434 miles


when you put up the following quote

Quote:
The melting of small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, would increase sea level around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet or the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 7.2 m or 61.1 m of sea level rise, respectively


you must have thought that ice sheets were the only ice that would melt.

the above quote only includes the ice sheets in greenland and the antartic . not the entire volume of ice.

PLUS **** ice sheets are floating on water...
melting of ice sheets will cause sea levels to decline.

so , if the above is considering that a sea level rise of 61 m
would be the result in the melting of only that tiny fraction of ice (glaciers and ice sheets).

then your 400 ft rise does not even come close to a final sea level rise from only counting all the ice that can melt.

the volume of ice on the antartic is structured as follows.

land mass = 13,720,000 km2 (5,300,000 sq mi)

ice thickness = About 98% of Antarctica is covered by ice that averages at least 1 mile (1.6 km) in thickness.

13,720,000 km^2 x 1.6 km = 21,952,000 km^3

Quote:
Given the ground heights around the middle east there would still be a hell of a lot of land above water.

Thats just going off know facts without any calcs but if you redo and recheck your calcs you should hopefully agree with those figures.


I didnt include any land mass above water , so any land mass above water would increase the final height of the waters.











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43906 - 06/05/12 10:59 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Mike Kremer]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
This is probably not scientific, but it is about water, its shortage and worth a :-).

During the 10 years drought in my state of Victoria the government went ahead to construct a massive desalination plant to supply Melbourne's water needs until 2100. Yesterday we had more rain in one day than we usually have in all of June, and this followed a wet spring, summer and autumn.

Yesterday water was being pumped OUT of the not quite finished plant. It had been flooded by RAIN!

________________


Whilst we are all mocking happily however, (who doesn't like to see our politicians squirm a bit?), at least, in the next drought, we will not have to be sorry we did not build the plant when we had the chance!

Top
#43907 - 06/06/12 01:54 AM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Ellis]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul go an read the wiki reference again and even read carefully what is in your quote above.

I assure you the figure for a full ice melt that is an ice free earth is 70m (61m from antarctica). The work was done by NASA for the IPCC and has been signed off by most scientists.

Ice that isn't on land that is already floating, if that melts will not change the sea level or slightly reduce as you noted, so the 61m sea rise is from land based antarctica all melting.

If you have any remaining doubt goto the NASA website and do a search I am sure you will find the work and it was part of a series for an "ice free" earth and its complete opposite a "snowball" earth. Those two extremes give you max and min sea level limits.

Edit: I actually tried searching public NASA site the presentation isn't available hmmm I will see if I can get a release authority and put out on uni site for you but will take some time.

Edit: Perhaps try searching GRACE website I am out of time. I ran across this anti-AGW site in a google search the numbers are basically the same as NASA and it has broken the ice up between grounded and ungrounded but I don't know who this source is so treat it as general data that matches what I am saying and may be useful(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html)

The only change you have added is dragging out the ground water which is slightly less than the stored ice water.


Edited by Orac (06/06/12 03:19 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#43912 - 06/06/12 01:31 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135


I cant find ANY of the numbers your using on the link you provided above.

ie...

Quote:
The earth's total amount of water is about 344 million cubic miles made up of

315 million cubic miles is seawater
9 million cubic miles is groundwater
7 million cubic miles is frozen in polar ice caps


this is the number I used to get my calculations.
it is not from any space agency it is from the
United States Geological Survey.

Quote:
Put all the water on this planet into a single sphere and it would have a diameter of about 860 miles, says the United States Geological Survey.


----------------- the math -----------------------
860 miles / 2 = 430 miles
---------------------------------------------------

volume of a sphere v=4/3 x (pi x r3)
v=4/3 x (pi x r^3)

700 km = 434 miles
(I did the math myself to make sure the 860 mile diameter would be correct --> the reason I used a 434 mile radius )

434 miles
434 x 5280 = 2291520 ft
d=2291520 ft
r=1145760 ft

(edit) I did make a mistake , ( old age brain fart ? ) but it was in my favor
I used 434 as the diameter above when 860 was already given as the diameter.
this will greatly increase the volume of the total water in the sphere.

(I really do wish that the people who operate this forum would widen the post window or at least make is adjustable , It is really hard to make a post that looks decent because everything looks different when you post it than it looked in the posting window)

starting all over again because of my mistake..

THE VOLUME OF THE SPHERE OF WATER

v=4/3 x (pi x r^3)

r = 2291520 =ft

r^3 = 12032917971959808000

pi x r^3 = 37802526701957526482.928142247451

/ 3 = 12600842233985842160.976047415817

x 4 = 50403368935943368643.904189663267

v= 50403368935943368643.904189663267 cu ft

the above calculation shows the volume of water in the
860 mile diameter sphere of total water on the earth
that the USGS reports.

lets break that number into cubic miles.

1 cubic mile = 5280 ft x 5280 ft x 5280 ft = 147197952000 cubic feet

50403368935943368643.904189663267 cu ft / 147197952000 cubic feet = 342418955.230 cubic miles

so the 344 million cubic miles you posted is pretty close to the above calculation of 342 million cubic miles.

THE SURFACE AREA OF THE EARTH

a=4 x (pi x r2)

7926 miles diameter
41849280 ft diameter
r = 20924640 ft radius
r^2 = 437840559129600
pi x r2 = 1375516684005198.8361281412832575
4x(pi x r2)= 5502066736020795.34451256513303 sq ft

STACKING THE VOLUME OF WATER IN THE SPHERE ON TOP OF THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH


sphere 50403368935943368643.904 cu ft/ earth 5502066736020795.344 sq ft = 9160.806 ft height

I had originaly posted 1145.10 ft but now the height has greatly increased to 9160 ft !!!

thanks orac for pointing that out.


this does not include all the sinking of land masses that are in the vicinity of rebounding land masses.

nor does it include any land currently above sea level.

nor does it include any other processes that would produce even more water , such as the earth resettling and cracking causing hydrogen to be released and that hydrogen binding with oxygen in the atmosphere.

Mount Everest, at 29,035 feet above sea level, is the highest spot on our planet.

but it would most likely sink into the ground , some if not all.

the more I think about it , the more I believe that the earth actually could be completely covered in water !!!

even as high as the 15 cubits above everything described in Genesis.


.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43913 - 06/06/12 02:30 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
I had originaly posted 1145.10 ft but now the height has greatly increased to 9160 ft !!!

Now back to a comment you made earlier about this explaining the flood of Noah. You said it explained how the water rose above the highest mountains. Now your own (incorrect) calculations don't cover that situation, since the highest mountain is Mt. Everest at 29,000 feet (8,839.2 meters). There a lot of mountains in the world above 9,000 feet.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#43914 - 06/06/12 03:01 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
There a lot of mountains in the world above 9,000 feet.


yes there are.

so what do you think will happen to those mountains when the pressure underneath them lowers?

they do sit on top of magma.

and currently the ice caps are pressurising that magma.

when the ice caps melt that pressure is removed.

when that pressure is removed , land will sink.

most likely the heaviest land first.

the earth is like a balloon , the earths crust is like the skin of the balloon.

the magma is like the air in the balloon



Quote:
Now your own (incorrect) calculations don't cover that situation


incorrect?

lets see your calculations then Bill !!!

I suppose I could calculate the volume of hydrogen in the volume of rock in the earth , apx 1 liter per cubic meter of rock.

and then calculate the extra volume of water that could be produced by that hydrogen binding with oxygen in the atmosphere.

and the hydrogen found in the magma as deep as 400 km.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071101084216AAoMWaW

Quote:
without indicating pressure or temperature

1 liter of water contains (approx) 55.56 moles of water, so 111.11 moles of hydrogen.

Using the ideal gas equation, PV=nRT at 1 atmosphere (sealevel), and room temperature (22C, 295K)

V = 111.11 * 0.08205784 * 295 / 1

this would give 2689.7 liters of hydrogen.


knowing this there would be 1 liter of water produced
from 2689.7 cubic meters of rock when the hydrogen binds with oxygen in the atmosphere.

also the volume of hydrogen that the earth leaches would reduce the mass of the rock so for each cubic meter of rock that leaches hydrogen the earths mass of rock would shrink because it has lost that hydrogen.


causing even more sea level rise !!!

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43919 - 06/07/12 04:24 AM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

I cant find ANY of the numbers your using on the link you provided above.


You didn't look very hard try your own link that started this
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Quote:

The volume of the largest sphere, representing all water on, in, and above the Earth, would be about 332,500,000 cubic miles (mi3) (1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (km3)), and be about 860 miles (about 1,385 kilometers) in diameter.


332,500,000 cubic miles (mi3) = 332.5 MILLION cubic miles a fraction smaller than NASA's number of 344 MILLION


NEXT FOR YOUR ERROR IN LOGIC IN YOUR CALCULATION

Quote:

315 million cubic miles is seawater
9 million cubic miles is groundwater
7 million cubic miles is frozen in polar ice caps


Note: 315+9+7 = 331 Million cubic miles which is almost the same as USGS's.

315 million cubic miles of that number is ALREADY IN THE CURRENT SEA LEVEL you cant add it in on top.

If you keep it in like you have then you need to put the reference height in from the bottom of the current sea bed NOT FROM CURRENT SEA LEVEL.

At the moment you have stacked all the ocean water ontop of all the ocean water and why you are getting ridiculously high numbers.

So the easiest way to recalc the sea level because the sea bed is up and down is to simply remove the ocean water out and add all other sources of water in which is what NASA does :-)


Edited by Orac (06/07/12 05:03 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#43923 - 06/07/12 03:09 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
You didn't look very hard try your own link that started this


amazing !
I was commenting on the amount of information I found on
YOUR LINK , not mine ;-)

its usually best to make sure that a link that you put up
pointing to information actually contains the information on the page that the link displays when someone clicks on it.

Quote:
and be about 860 miles


I was using the following 700 km posted by Mike.

Quote:
Mike Kremer said,

Greetings Revking,
I think you will find, its 700 kilometers, as it states in the original NASA picture,
a couple of letters back.


700 km = 434 miles

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&...280&bih=616

Quote:
332,500,000 cubic miles (mi3) = 332.5 MILLION cubic miles a fraction smaller than NASA's number of 344 MILLION


since I was using 434 miles as the diameter then that is why
I had 342 million cubic miles vs the 332 million cubic miles


Quote:
NEXT FOR YOUR ERROR IN LOGIC IN YOUR CALCULATION


error?

why would you say error?

didnt I clearly emphasize that I was stacking the volume of water on top of the surface area of the earth?

lets look

Quote:
7926 miles diameter
41849280 ft diameter
r = 20924640 ft radius
r^2 = 437840559129600
pi x r2 = 1375516684005198.8361281412832575
4x(pi x r2)= 5502066736020795.34451256513303 sq ft

STACKING THE VOLUME OF WATER IN THE SPHERE ON TOP OF THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH


sphere 50403368935943368643.904 cu ft/ earth 5502066736020795.344 sq ft = 9160.806 ft height

I had originaly posted 1145.10 ft but now the height has greatly increased to 9160 ft !!!

thanks orac for pointing that out.



yes I did clearly point that out.

Quote:
So the easiest way to recalc the sea level because the sea bed is up and down is to simply remove the ocean water out and add all other sources of water in which is what NASA does :-)


its much harder that that orac , because of geographical elevations , also you would need a computer program that takes into consideration the amount of rebounding and the amount of sinking of land masses and sea floor due to the melting of the ice.

this rebounding and sinking of land and sea bed would crack the earth deep down , and would cause the release of hydrogen from the rock.

this would also need to be included into the computer program to calculate anything close to a possible scenario.

considering that the earths hydrosphere is only 0.023 percent of earths total mass , this leaves room for a deluge of water from binding hydrogen and oxygen atoms forming water molecules as the earth resettles into a stable shape over time due to the land and sea floor rebounding and the land and sea floor sinking that will be a result of the ice melting.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43925 - 06/07/12 03:26 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I am confused is this an excercise in ridiculous or are you actually trying to calculate something?

So what you just calculated was the average depth of the current ocean give or take because 97% of that water is already on the sphere surface exactly where you are trying to put it.

So unless you have another 315 Million cubic miles of water up your sleeve not much is going to radically change sea levels.


Edited by Orac (06/07/12 03:30 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#43926 - 06/07/12 03:40 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul

its much harder that that orac , because of geographical elevations , also you would need a computer program that takes into consideration the amount of rebounding and the amount of sinking of land masses and sea floor due to the melting of the ice.

this rebounding and sinking of land and sea bed would crack the earth deep down , and would cause the release of hydrogen from the rock.

this would also need to be included into the computer program to calculate anything close to a possible scenario.

considering that the earths hydrosphere is only 0.023 percent of earths total mass , this leaves room for a deluge of water from binding hydrogen and oxygen atoms forming water molecules as the earth resettles into a stable shape over time due to the land and sea floor rebounding and the land and sea floor sinking that will be a result of the ice melting.


I looked at glacial rebound because of some crap from pre-earth and that will take hundreds of thousands of years if not longer probably millions.

Plate tectonics and/or preearth theory whichever you want to believe will have the world looking very different to today anyhow so sea level discussions are rather meaningless on these scales.

So I guess I come back to the point .... what is the meaning of what your calculating.


Edited by Orac (06/07/12 03:42 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#43927 - 06/07/12 04:03 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
I looked at glacial rebound because of some crap from pre-earth and that will take hundreds of thousands of years if not longer probably millions.


Glacial rebound !!!

I guess you dont know that continents loaded down with ice would rebound much faster than the more stable land underneath glaciers.

also I guess you dont know that greenland is already showing the effects of rebounding.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-rising-faster-as-ice-loss-accelerates.html


Quote:
We have several independent lines of evidence that Greenland is losing ice at an accelerating rate. Satellite altimetry find glaciers are sliding faster downhill and dumping more ice into the ocean. Altimetry data also find the ice sheet is thinning. An overall picture is obtained by satellites measuring the gravity around the ice sheet. Another line of evidence has now been added to this picture with GPS measurements finding that Greenland is losing ice so quickly, the land is now rising up at an accelerating rate.

These results are published in Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss (Jiang 2010). The study looks at high-precision global positioning system (GPS) data that measure the vertical motion of the rocky margins around Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard. The weight of ice sheets push down on the bedrock it rests on. As the ice sheets lose mass, the bedrock rises. This process, known as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), has been happening since the planet came out of an ice age around 17,000 years ago. How do we know whether current uplift might be a delayed response to glacial retreats from thousands of years ago? To avoid the effect of past events, this study focuses on vertical acceleration rather than velocities. The results are therefore insensitive to GIA-related motions from past ice mass changes.

What they find is crustal uplift in Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard is accelerating. Extrapolating the acceleration backwards in time finds the acceleration began after 1990. The acceleration of uplift over the past decade represents an essentially instantaneous, elastic response to recent accelerated melting of ice throughout the North Atlantic region.


Quote:
and that will take hundreds of thousands of years if not longer probably millions.


would you consider that the above text is speaking about thousands or millions of years ?

does instantaneous, elastic response mean thousands or millions of years or does it mean instantaneous, elastic response.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43928 - 06/07/12 04:08 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
WOW 0.6mm per year

6 mm in 10 years
60 mm in 100 years
600 mm (0.6m) im 1000 years
6000 mm (6m or 19 ft) in 10000 years
60000 mm (60m or 196 ft) in 100000 years

Assuming that rate kept constant and as usual with all pressure things it won't it will drop away.

Even using your data the timescale is immense.


Edited by Orac (06/07/12 04:12 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#43929 - 06/07/12 04:16 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Assuming that rate kept constant and as usual with all pressure things it won't it will drop away.


Assuming will not slow the acceleration of ice melt.
and to assume that the rate of ice melt will stay constant is hardly feasible.

the more ice that melts the more water that forms on top of the ice , this melted water collects heat from the sun more rapidly.

because of its color / its ability to reflect light is removed and its ability to collect and store heat from the sun is increased.

acceleration does not mean constant.
a constant acceleration at a given rate of the ice melt is not possible.

pressure will not remain constant.
the amount of pressure that is released from the underlying bedrock will also be accelerating but not at a constant rate of acceleration.

the faster the ice melts the quicker the land rebounds.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#43930 - 06/07/12 04:32 PM Re: Earths Water in a Ball [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
It works nothing like that from what I read unless you have a new theory now I am no expert I am just going by what I read.

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

Studies have shown that the uplift has taken place in two distinct stages

The initial uplift following deglaciation was near-instantaneous due to the elastic response of the crust as the ice load was removed.

After this elastic phase, uplift proceeded by slow viscous flow so the rate of uplift decreased exponentially after that.


That inital stage wont last forever and the second stage will kick in and it will decrease.

Given that the ice has only just melted from greenland with the last few years it's fairly obvious it is in the initial phase and it will drop away and thats what my statement is based on.


Edited by Orac (06/07/12 04:32 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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