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 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

This thread was motivated by the following comment of kallog;

Originally Posted By: kallog
If these are the important issues (of global warming), then it would be helpful for those scientists and others who get in the media to actually mention them. The best I usually hear is "rising sea levels", "poor Bangladesh", and "poor cute polar bears" but those are relatively trivial problems.

So,... you think rising sea levels are a trivial problem?

Let's calculate the sea-level rise due to the Antarctic ice sheet melting.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica we gleam the following facts;

Area of ice-covered Antarctica = 13,720,000 sq km (5,300,000 sq mi)

Average depth of ice = 1.6 km (1.0 mi)

This implies a volume of ice = 13,720,000 * 1.6 = 21,952,000 km3

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean we have;

The area covered by the ocean = 361,000,000 km2

Thus if the Antarctic ice sheet were to melt the sea-level would rise by

21952000/361000000 = 0.06081 km = 60.81 meters.

To perform an accurate calculation one needs to take into account that the density of ice is less than that of water, that the land below the icecaps will rise (isostatic rebound), that sea water will replace some of the grounded ice, that the surface area of ocean will increase and that the ocean will expand as temperatures increase.

Since I don't know how to do these things, I defer to the following source,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

where the U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

the Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),

the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),

the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),

and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of 80.32 meters (263.5 feet).

The U.S. Geological Survey people also claim that a 10-meter rise in sea level would flood approximately 25 percent of the United State's population. That is a 10-meter rise.

An 80 meter rise in sea-level will flood almost all of the world's coastal cities (you know, towns like London, Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Sydney and even places further from the coast like Paris and Bucharest) and it would flood a fair chunk of the best arable land on the planet.

But, don't worry,... be happy.

The good news is that it will take a long time for the ice sheets to melt, but when they do, that land you have in London, or Manhattan, or Paris, isn't going to be worth a dime.

It will take many decades for an ice sheet the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, to melt. How long, will, of course, depend on the temperature rise. But remember, there was a much larger ice sheet over the US and Canada only some 10,000 years ago and it disappeared, in geological terms, very rapidly. Does anyone know any facts and figures for this?

Now, the melt of the Greenland ice-sheet is progressing nicely and will bring a 6.5 meter (21 feet) practise rise in sea-level. It is not yet clear whether the Antarctic ice sheet has begun an irreversible melt. It seems that it has not, but the jury is still out.

Maybe I should mention that, many years ago, after calculating the expansion of the oceans due to a one degree change in temperature, I claimed that sea-level rise would not be a problem. Hearing this, some kind person informed me that I was wrong and provided me with (something like) the above reply.

Maybe I should also mention, that I am quite impressed at the way the professional internet liars have kept such simple knowledge, as the above, from reaching the public.

Changing the topic a little, here is a graphic showing carbon dioxide concentration (ppm) versus temperature (centigrade) over the last 420,000 years.



Hmmm, there certainly seems to be a correlation. What do you think?

But, don't worry,... be happy.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Oh hi. Kallog looks a lot like me!


I'm not disputing those things you presented, but they entirely miss my point. You've ignored the end effect on people, which is what actually matters. That's what people should be debating instead of whittling the entire issue down to an excuse to promote the puritan idea of "It's sinful to enjoy a comfortable life".

What I'm disputing is the implied seriousness of rising sea levels. It sounds scary to say "Paris will be flooded!" But so what? Will 10 million Parisians drown? Of course not. Will all our investment in cities be lost? Not really. Why? Because it'll happen slowly, giving us time to let the current infrastructure run to the end of its useful life and replacing it further uphill. Will millions of Parisians be made homeless? No. They'll have plenty of time to move elsewhere - at some cost, just as most of our predecessors have done in the past 100 years. Do you still live in the house you inherited off your great grandparents?

How many buildings that existed 100 years ago are still in use today? Hardly any of them. We destroyed them because we didn't want them anymore.

How much of our current city infrastructure will still be in use in 100 years, even without rising sea levels? Hardly any of it. Most buildings aren't intended to last that long. We won't want to keep them, we'll want something better instead. That something better can be put in a slightly safer location.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

I truly wonder about your ability to think logically.

For example, let's take a closer look at you claim:

Will millions of Parisians be made homeless? No.

If the climate is left to warm, even the most stupid Parisian will eventually realize that there is no stopping, one, or other, ice-sheet melting, and consequently, that there is no stopping their land and home from eventually disappearing beneath the ocean. Maybe not for another 50 or 100 years, but the ice sheet will inexorably keep melting and sea-levels keep rising.

How much, will our Parisian's land be worth?

How much, will their land be worth, when everyone one knows it will be worth zero in 50 or 100 years?

Maybe our Parisian will be able to net 10% of its value, if it had been located higher?

And how will he buy a new home with this,... so he will be left homeless, unless he is otherwise rich.

And worse, many billions of people will be bidding for the land that will not be flooded.

This will force the cost of land, and housing, that will not be flooded, sky-high.

So now, our Parisians old home, will not even cover the deposit on a new home.

So how is it, exactly, that Parisians will not be made homeless, when it appears that the great majority will be left homeless?


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Hello Preearth. Please don't use insults like "...your ability to think logically".

100 years ago the population of the world was about 2 billion. Now it's about 6 billion. Rather than losing land, we gained people, but the effect is the same - 2/3 of the world's population have effectively been made 'homeless'.

As a result, many of them have had to spend a lot of their life working to buy a new house. As you know, it's very common for people to buy their own house rather than inherit it from their parents. However bad this is, it actually happens, and we manage fine.

Keep in mind that this is mostly an intergenerational thing. Most or all current Paris property owners will be dead before their land is flooded.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Hello Preearth. Please don't use insults like "...your ability to think logically".

100 years ago the population of the world was about 2 billion. Now it's about 6 billion. Rather than losing land, we gained people, but the effect is the same - 2/3 of the world's population have effectively been made 'homeless'.

As a result, many of them have had to spend a lot of their life working to buy a new house. As you know, it's very common for people to buy their own house rather than inherit it from their parents. However bad this is, it actually happens, and we manage fine.

Keep in mind that this is mostly an intergenerational thing. Most or all current Paris property owners will be dead before their land is flooded.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
100 years ago the population of the world was about 2 billion. Now it's about 6 billion. Rather than losing land, we gained people, but the effect is the same - 2/3 of the world's population have effectively been made 'homeless'.

I truly wonder about your ability to think logically.

This population growth will most likely continue AND at the same time, the most habitable land will be disappearing.

There will be billions of new population AND at the same time, there will be billions of people from low lying areas,... ALL looking for new accommodation.

It is true, that the problem with past population growth was (marginally) handled by the development of megacities.

But, you use this fact, to claim that the housing problem that will be caused by the destruction of many of these megacities AND the usual population growth, together, will be minimal.

That is truly an example of faulty logic.

You do see how stupid that implication is,... don't you?



Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: preearth

This population growth will most likely continue AND

The problems caused by the population growth we already saw were acceptable enough. Who says we can't double it in the next 100 years? That'll be a slower growth rate than we've seen, and less costly to the average individual. Sure there might be problems of food, energy, water, etc. But that's not rising sea levels, and will happen regardless. However, the population will plateau at some stage, quite possibly during this century.

Quote:

at the same time, the most habitable land will be disappearing.

Sure it'll be disappearing. But it's mostly only desirable because it's near the coast. If the coast moves then places that are now undesirable will become more desirable because they'll have easy access to the sea. Look at the endless sprawling underdeveloped wastes of space like Ohio, etc.

Quote:

problem that will be caused by the destruction of many of these megacities AND the usual population growth,

What destruction? We're destroying our cities all the time. Look at the buildings around you. How old are most of them? 100 years? Unless you live in central London, that's very unlikely. Do you ever notice old buildings being demolished? How often to roads have to be resurfaced? Sewer pipes dug up and replaced? You're viewing large cities are static and irreplaceable. But they're mostly continuously being renewed.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
What destruction? We're destroying our cities all the time.


You are quite mad.

kallog said: "What destruction?"

The destruction of the land we build cities on (by it being submerged).

kallog said: "We're destroying our cities all the time."

So what? The point is that presently we are NOT destroying the land our cities are built on (only reusing it).

Somehow, you aren't able to differentiate between these two obviously very different situations.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: preearth

You are quite mad.

I already asked you to please not insult me. If you can't explain yourself then just don't reply.

Quote:

Somehow, you aren't able to differentiate between these two obviously very different situations.


The difference is one requires buying new land. That new land will be (initially) cheap because it's currently not part of cities. Sure individual landowners will lose out, but so what? It's not that bad, because we've seen it happening already with the population growth and how most of the world's population has had to effectively buy new land because their families were too big to all live together generation after generation.

I think you're stuck in a mindset that the locations of cities are somehow special and fundamentally necessary. They're not, they're just accidents of history that typically started by being near the sea and got perpetuated by people wanting to be near other people. The new locations of cities will be just the same. You can look at is as adding much more value to land which is currently underutilized.

If you don't believe there's tons of spare empty land just waiting to be built on, go have a look at Google earth. That's how I found the underdeveloped place called Ohio.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Kallog- I live in a very, apparently, underdeveloped country, but certainly away from the coast development would be difficult and expensive. I an interested in the concept of 'tons of empty land' as I had assumed that land that was uninhabited by humans is in fact usually fairly usefully employed.

There is virtually no land that waits to be discovered anymore. Land which is in pristine state today is usually part of a managed wilderness of some sort, and is valuable for we humans as a future resource or a carbon sink. Likewise the land which is lightly populated is in fact farm land or land that is productive in some other way. It may be empty but it not unused.

The growth of cities expanding into arable land is already a problem. We still do need land to grow our food on. And where do you get the idea that land will ever be cheap to buy? Land will sell for whatever a person is prepared to pay for it, and in a time of disastrous sea levels rising that will be a lot.

We already build our cities in areas where we should not. I'm sure we will continue to do so, and like the people of Venice, and now Brisbane, we will watch the floods rise around us before it dawns on us we are in a spot of bother.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Ellis
assumed that land that was uninhabited by humans is in fact usually fairly usefully employed.

I didn't say uninhabited. Look at the example of Ohio that I gave. It seems the major cities there are full of sprawling low-rise buildings. Places like that could easily support much higher population densities, by building up instead of out.


Quote:

There is virtually no land that waits to be discovered anymore. Land which is in pristine state today is usually

You read too much into my words. I Didn't claim that.

Quote:

Venice, and now Brisbane, we will watch the floods rise around us before it dawns on us we are in a spot of bother.

Quite possibly. But now that we apparently know it's going to happen, it'll be too bad for property profiteers who didn't think ahead. Remember it'll mostly affect future generations - people who haven't yet made the decision to buy such at-risk land.


People should take a step back and look at the big picture. Suppose 1/4 of the world's dry land gets flooded and also the population doubles. That means the average population density increases to 8/3 of what it was over say 100 years.

If we have population doubling without land loss, it increases to 6/3 what it was.

Over the past 100 years it has increased to 9/3 what it was.

So yea it's not good news, but it's relatively minor compared to what's already happened, and compared to what would happen anyway.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

One example of kallog's perverse "logic."

"Over the past 100 years it has increased to 9/3 what it was."

So we don't have to worry about the loss of land due to sea-level rise,... because we handled similar things in the past.


This is just stupid "logic." Here is a different example of this moronic "logic."

In 2006, 21 students from a Kuala Lampur college stuffed themselves into a 1999 lime green MINI Cooper (a tiny British car).

By kallog's "logic," we should feel comfortable that at least 42 students should fit into a 1999 mini Cooper, in the future.

They got 21 students into a mini Cooper in the past,....

And the fact that they could do this in the past, absolutely proves (By kallog's perverse "logic") that in the future it must be possible to fit significantly more students into a 1999 mini Cooper.


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
Ok, just my 2 cents worth. Technically it would be quite possible to move all the people who live in areas that will be flooded by rising seas. It wouldn't be easy, but it could certainly be done. Then comes the big problem. The problem that makes relocating all those people, and getting agriculture readjusted to the new climates look like a piece of cake.

The HUGE problem is political. For example: Bangladesh. Bangladesh has a very large population for its area. And it is very low lying. So we would have to find an area where we could move all those people, and getting other countries to accept those people and let them have land inside their boundaries. I don't think it would be at all easy to get any country or countries to give up their land to a different nation.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: preearth

In 2006, 21 students from a Kuala Lampur college stuffed themselves into a 1999 lime green MINI Cooper (a tiny British car).

By kallog's "logic," we should feel comfortable that at least 42 students should fit into a 1999 mini Cooper, in the future.


It's not comparible. In the past 100 years we didn't "stuff the maximum number of people we could" into the world. We're not yet at the limit of capacity.

You also ignored my other, more significant comparison about what would happen in the next 100 years without global warming. If we can't cope with losing land. How can we cope with a population doubling?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill
The HUGE problem is political.

countries to accept those people and let them have land inside their boundaries. I don't think it would be at all easy to get any country or countries to give up their land to a different nation.


Hehe I totally agree. No matter how "moral" most activists claim to be, they typically stop short of the most effective means of helping many people, which is immigration.

"Ooh lets save those poor flooded people by buying an electric car and putting a solar panel on our roof."
"Can we borrow your unused land?"
"Go away! I need that for my vege garden to help save you from global warming!"

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
It's not comparible. In the past 100 years we didn't "stuff the maximum number of people we could" into the world. ***We're not yet at the limit of capacity.***


That is debatable. Last year the scientific journal Science did a short series of food security and sustainability. Its behind a paywall, but some of the articles can be seen here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812.abstract

Long story short, current agricultural practices are unlikely to be sustainable with the current population, never mind what its expected to grow to over the next few decades. Even if we held the current population, we're not sustainable - by which I mean that while they can feed all the people now, the effect they have on the land will over time reduce their capacity to a point where they are no longer sufficient.

There is a lot of room for improvement (less waste, higher efficiency, planning for sustainability), but our ability to feed ourselves is limited. At the end of the day the only sustainable option is to somehow control our population - preferably before nature forcibly does so.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 02/25/11 08:13 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Long story short, current agricultural practices are unlikely to be sustainable with the current population,


I'm not too suprised. However I was showing the fault in the comparison with the car filled with people. We can fit more people on the Earth, sustainably or not, we do it every day the population grows.

However what you said strengthens my idea that losing land to rising sea levels is a relatively minor problem. I think some people just get panicy at the idea of old established places disappearing and blow it out of proportion like it's the end of the world.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Long story short, current agricultural practices are unlikely to be sustainable with the current population,


I'm not too suprised. However I was showing the fault in the comparison with the car filled with people. We can fit more people on the Earth, sustainably or not, we do it every day the population grows.


The car thing was pretty stupid, but you do have to consider the source...

Unfortunately, space is the least of our problems, vis-a-vis sustainable populations.

Originally Posted By: kallog
However what you said strengthens my idea that losing land to rising sea levels is a relatively minor problem. I think some people just get panicy at the idea of old established places disappearing and blow it out of proportion like it's the end of the world.


I'd say its a pretty big issue. Lets ignore that most humans live close to large bodies of water for a second, and the disruption sea level changes would cause with that. About 1/3rd of the raid-fed food we consume is produced - yep you guessed it, close to those same bodies of water. So we'd loose food-producing capacity. Most of our internationally-traded goods are transported via ships; we'd have to replace many/all our ports. Same holds true for a lot of our other resources.

Its not a matter of simply moving people - its a matter of replacing a pattern of ~10,000 years of human habitation.

Bryan

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

About 1/3rd of the raid-fed food we consume is produced - yep you guessed it, close to those same bodies of water. So we'd loose food-producing capacity. Most of our internationally-traded goods are transported via ships; we'd have to replace many/all our ports. Same holds true for a lot of our other resources.


Sure. But if the coastline moves, then after sufficient time everything associated with that will move too. Rainy land is near the sea because it's near the sea, shipping ports are near the sea because they're near the sea.

Tho I'm not considering farmland here. Sure that might be a serious problem. My point was about populations having to move, which I still think is quite acceptable based on my previous reasoning. Mainly that just about the entire world's population has already had to move over the last 100 years just to get away from each other! People are still building new houses when they're too numerous to live in their parents' house, despite the huge expense.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

About 1/3rd of the raid-fed food we consume is produced - yep you guessed it, close to those same bodies of water. So we'd loose food-producing capacity. Most of our internationally-traded goods are transported via ships; we'd have to replace many/all our ports. Same holds true for a lot of our other resources.


Sure. But if the coastline moves, then after sufficient time everything associated with that will move too. Rainy land is near the sea because it's near the sea, shipping ports are near the sea because they're near the sea.


Except that biome changes take 100's of years. Its more than just rainfall that makes those places good areas to farm, but also centuries/millenia of soil deposition and whatnot.

Sea level rises or not, its going to be an issue. Most modern farming techs don't maintain soil quality or quantity. Its already becoming an issue in some areas. Seal level rises will simply accelerate the issue.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Tho I'm not considering farmland here. Sure that might be a serious problem. My point was about populations having to move, which I still think is quite acceptable based on my previous reasoning.


Except that simply moving people is only the first - and easiest - of many issues that will be faced as a result.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Except that biome changes take 100's of years. Its more than just rainfall that makes those places good areas to


Yea but farmland is a different issue. Although there is the possibility of human intervention to accelerate the process at some cost. We're happy to spend money trying to stop the problem now, so it shouldn't be too hard to spend money adapting to it when it happens.

Quote:

Except that simply moving people is only the first - and easiest - of many issues that will be faced as a result.


Sure, but this topic is about sea level rise displacing people, over a long period of time. It won't often be established people moving, but their descendants when they grow up enough to leave home, they'd buy their new house somewhere further inland. Not particularly different from what they currently do.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
263 feet is a short estimate.

because you or they are not counting the (weight) of the bulging oceans as the sea levels rise.

and they are not counting the (weight)of the land under the melting ice moving further away from the center of rotation of the earth.

and they are not counting the (weight) of the sea water that is displaced by the rebounding land as the ice melts.

therefore they are not counting the earths slowing rotation that will reduce the current bulge of the oceans.

I would not bet on anything lower than a 500 ft sea level rise or possibly even more.

and I wouldnt bet on their time tables either as they do not account for all elements in the equation.


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
Hi Ellis
from the looks of the recent news headlines I bet you guys are all building houseboats down under there.

I thought I would reply to this

Quote:
There is virtually no land that waits to be discovered anymore


think of all the new uncharted territory that is slowly being uncovered as the ice melts in greenland and the antartic , wouldnt it be something if ancient cities were exposed by the melting ice.


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
think of all the new uncharted territory that is slowly being uncovered as the ice melts in greenland and the antartic , wouldnt it be something if ancient cities were exposed by the melting ice.


Just one of the amazing possibilities that this exciting and dramatic change might bring. Who knows what other goodies are in store! People focus too much on the negative just because they fear change, but there will certainly be positives too. We're already seeing the economic benefits of shipping across the arctic.


Last edited by kallog; 03/07/11 10:47 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
think of all the new uncharted territory that is slowly being uncovered as the ice melts in greenland and the antartic , wouldnt it be something if ancient cities were exposed by the melting ice.


This is unlikely - both the Antartic and Greenland have largely/totally ice-covered for all of human history.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
you must mean recorded human history.
or the "records" that are available to look at meaning the
part of earth that is above ground the extremely THIN layer above the boiling hot MAGMA.

I suspect that there are no remnants of the original earths crust still above ground.

the earths crust has probably melted several times in the past.

and what we think is the oldest rock on the earth today is merely a fraction of the age of the molecules that make up its mass.

like when the ice on our poles melt away again and the atmosphere heats up and the earths surface heats up , it will probably melt again.




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
like when the ice on our poles melt away again and the atmosphere heats up and the earths surface heats up , it will probably melt again.

I'd change "probably" to "be unlikely to". Considering it isn't happening on Venus despite the mad greenhouse effect there.

There's subduction and all that, but I had the feeling that the continental crust keeps floating while the ocean floors are continually renewed.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
you must mean recorded human history.

No, all of human history. Physiologically modern homo sapiens origonated in Africa ~200,000 years ago, while so-called "modern" homo sapiens arose somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago.

Ice cores have shown that Antartica has been completely frozen for at least the past 150,000 years.

That means that in no time since modern homo sapiens arose has the Antarctic lacked ice. Given the paleodata for the ~50,000 year window between the end of the Volstok cores (150,000YA) and when physiologicallly modern humans arose (200,000YA), it is improbable in the extreme that Antarctica was ever ice-free in that period - not that the humans in that era had the technology to reach Antarctica (its ~5000km of open water from the tip of South Africa to Antarctica; the shortest route available to our pre-modern anscestors).

Originally Posted By: paul
I suspect that there are no remnants of the original earths crust still above ground.

You suspect wrong. I live a few km from the place where the oldest dated rock was discovered. It was 4.03 billion years old. My cottage is on Canadian shield; all of which is Archaean gneisses; the first stable crust our earth had. Zircon crystals have been found, dating to ~4.4 billion years ago, meaning they formed at the same time as the earths crust.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Physiologically modern homo sapiens origonated in Africa ~200,000 years ag

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/07/first-humans-britain-stone-tools

Quote:
First humans arrived in Britain 250,000 years earlier than thought
Archaeologists digging on a Norfolk beach found stone tools that show the first humans were living in Britain much earlier than previously thought
................

The stone tools were unearthed from sediments that are thought to have been laid down either 840,000 or 950,000 years ago, making them the oldest human artefacts ever found in Britain.
................
The early Britons would have lived alongside sabre-toothed cats and hyenas, primitive horses, red deer and southern mammoths in a climate similar to that of southern Britain today, though winters were typically a few degrees colder.






Quote:
Man made sphere is 2 billion years old


the oldest hominid is around 7 million years old.

but were talking 2 billion years ago according to the above
dated artifact.

7 million ( fits into ) 2 billion 285 times!!!


Quote:
I suspect that there are no remnants of the original earths crust still above ground.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Quote:
Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.


You should notify them , they might not have looked in canada.


Quote:
think of all the new uncharted territory that is slowly being uncovered as the ice melts in greenland and the antartic , wouldnt it be something if ancient cities were exposed by the melting ice.


http://www.s8int.com/water29.html

Quote:
Medieval maps show Antarctica without ice cover or partly covered with ice. The accuracy of maps of the 16th century is incredible. In terms of the technical means their data can be compared with those of the end of the 18th century and sometimes with those of the 20th century.


people still live in alaska and have been there since
12,000 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska


the maps show dry land on antarctica and if there were ships traveling to antarctica when there was dry land to land on.

I would think that there would also be cities that are now
covered in ice.

but I think that way only because Im not pig headed.






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: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
but I think that way only because Im not pig headed.

One of my favorite quotes is "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out"...

...I think you may want to check the floor...

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Physiologically modern homo sapiens origonated in Africa ~200,000 years ag

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/07/first-humans-britain-stone-tools

LOL, try reading your own article (4th paragraph after the video):

The flints were probably left by hunter-gatherers of the human species Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor was not a physiologically modern human. Their brains were ~25% smaller than ours, they were physiologically robust, incapable of complex speech (had not evolved a proper larynx yet) and had sloped foreheads.

Originally Posted By: paul

Quote:
Man made sphere is 2 billion years old


the oldest hominid is around 7 million years old.

but were talking 2 billion years ago according to the above
dated artifact.

Critical thinking isn't your cup of tea, is it...

Firstly, you cannot date when rocks were modified; you can only date when they were formed. So all your date tells us is when that rock formed. It could have been carved into a ball yesterday.

Secondly, and more importantly, your sphere is nothing more than a Klerksdorp sphere; a well understood natural phenomena - simply a concretion within porous rock.

Originally Posted By: paul
the maps show dry land on antarctica and if there were ships traveling to antarctica when there was dry land to land on.

There is "dry land" on Antarctica today; it comprises less than 1% the total land area of Antarctica - just as it did in the 1600's, and just as it did 150,000 years ago. But ice-free does not equal habitable. Nearly all of the ice-free land in the Antarctic consists of nothing more than rocky beaches and gullies, free of all plant life but a few lichens and mosses. Humans cannot live on that.

The two are not even comparable, in regards to human occupancy. In comparison to the Arctic, Antarctica lacks significant plant life, flowing fresh water, and land mammals - all of which are central to life in the Arctic. Likewise, humans walked to the Arctic; the Antarctic requires a 5000km or more trip over the roughest seas on the planet; something beyond the capacities of paleo-tech peoples (and something very difficult by pre-industrial age sailing ships).

Originally Posted By: paul
but I think that way only because Im not pig headed.


Actually, I think its pretty clear you think this way because you don't apply critical thought to the things you read...

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Homo antecessor was not a physiologically modern human. Their brains were ~25% smaller than ours, they were physiologically robust, incapable of complex speech (had not evolved a proper larynx yet) and had sloped foreheads.


and heres the evidence


and heres the entire lot


Its easy to tell from the massive complete skeleton pictured above that they had no larynx at all.

so how did they talk to others on the phone?

if a pigheaded archaeologist in the future finds the
below modern human skulls he will probably say the same thing
about them.

open mind LOL
more like slammed shut years ago...

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Neanderthals/More-Neanderthals-4.html



I wonder how dumb and stupid future archaeologist would say that we were because of our wierdly shaped skulls.



Quote:
Klerksdorp spheres are small objects, often spherical to disc-shaped, that have been collected by miners and rockhounds from 3-billion-year-old pyrophyllite deposits mined by Wonderstone Ltd., near Ottosdal, South Africa.


So over the years the minners who had nothing else to do
just spent all day carving the rings around these stones
before they were pulled from the 3 billion year old pyrophyllite deposits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klerksdorp_sphere

they should consider getting jobs as magicians and leave mining to regular people.

critical thought certainly is something you have talked about.



Quote:
but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.


http://www.ancientdestructions.com.au/site/destructions/piri-reis-antarctica-map.php


but just to rub it in a bit have a look at the below map
that clearly shows that the antartic was not ice covered.

given that the antartic was supposed to be covered in 2000
meter deep ice on average as it is today , how could anyone have envisioned or imagined that the antartic would be 2 large land masses.

http://www.diegocuoghi.it/Piri_Reis/Buache_eng.htm

heres a image of what the antarctic would look like
if there was no ice on it.

minus any upheaval of the land because of the ice melting away.

http://www.zonu.com/fullsize-en/2009-11-18-11159/Antarctica-topography-and-bathymetry-2008.html



and this is what it looks like today


http://www.bugbog.com/maps/polar_regions/antarctic_circle_map.html

I choose to allow my open mind to look at the evidence
found in the past before I pigheadedly decide things
without looking.

but thats just me.















3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Actually the figure keeps getting revised down.

You can check the calcs at NASA website.

Comment by Donald P. Wylie on May 13, 1999
"Interesting example. Regarding the comment at the end that coast lines are not vertical so the estimate of sea level rise is less than calculated, there is a way to estimate a minimum amount of sea level rise. The earth has only 25% of its surface in land above water. If the melted ice sheets covered all land, than the calculation of sea level rise would be reduced by 75%. So the predicted ~80 meter rise in sea level would be ~60 meter if all of the earth's surface were covered with ocean. Therefore, the sea level rise estimate is between 60 and 80 meters. Even 60 meters is a lot in my book.

Expanded on by Claire L. Parkinson Response:
The suggestion made by Donald Wylie is very nice. Elaborating on it, I suggest the following: A lower bound to the amount of sea level rise can readily be estimated by conceptually spreading the water from the ice sheets over the entire globe instead of just over the ocean area of the globe. When this is done, the minimum global sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet would be (2,343,728 cubic kilometers)/(surface area of the Earth) and that from the Antarctic ice sheet would be (26,384,368 cubic kilometers)/(surface area of the Earth). Inserting the 510,073,000 square kilometer surface area of the globe from the "Hammond Citation World Atlas" (Hammond, Maplewood, New Jersey, 1992, p.352), the results are lower bounds of 4.6 meters of sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet and 51.7 meters of sea level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet, for a total of 56.3 meters of sea level rise from both ice sheets together."


The agreed up bound is around 61m assuming an ice free world.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Orac
51.7 meters of sea level rise from the Antarctic


I'm just looking forwards to all the interesting stuff that might be uncovered when it melts! It'll be a whole new unexplored continent.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I have found a even better way to get a lower estimate , if we calculate in the surface area of the moon and estimate that all of the melting ice would go to the moon then there would be no sea level rise at all.

so there it is , no sea level rise predicted.

voila!!


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
and estimate that all of the melting ice would go to the moon then there would be no sea level rise at all.


Heh, yes, Orac's lower estimate is kind of meaningless without further explanation. The fact that the sea level hasn't risen by that amount proves it can rise less, so any lower bound greater than zero is immediately proved wrong.

Unless it's a lower bound _if_ all the polar ice melts. But even then, what if it does go to the moon? Or evaporate. I guess the more global warming we have, the more sea water will be retained in the atmosphere.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: kallog
[I guess the more global warming we have, the more sea water will be retained in the atmosphere.
yes

1 repeat
2 more sea water retained in the atmosphere >> more global warming
3 more global warming >> more sea water retained in the atmosphere
4 until sea water = 0


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: redewenur

4 until sea water = 0


Heh, so the lower bound of sea level rise would be negative 12km :P

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The original OP is very specific in what he was saying and discussing which is an >>> ICE FREE WORLD <<< in which we could actually possibly still live so it can't look like mercury or the sun.

I was simply adding in the calculated upper and lower bounds of an ice free world assuming the laws of physics actually still exist.

You want to keep adding water into air beyond it's saturation point or send it to the moon I am not sure I can help you with that calculation.

My mistake was actually wasting my time having anything to do with a climate change debate because of the usual types that frequent them.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Orac
My mistake was actually wasting my time having anything to do with a climate change debate because of the usual types that frequent them.


Haha, you only just realized that? I discovered it years ago when I started hearing about global warming, and everybody I talked to had already formed a silly opinion out of nothing.

You can't expect much more for such a speculative topic. Global warming doesn't have a clear direct impact on any of us. Nobody really knows what's going on. That's why people have to resort to beliefs and making up bits of reasoning to give themselves something to hang their personal idealism on.

So I basically have no respect for the topic - it's a free-for-all.

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

that is a thermal conductivity chart you should use a
r value chart.

that would give insulation values of the different materials.

heres one

http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm

and rock will absorb and hold heat or cold so you would have a great place to live inside a cave but you could freeze or heat to death before long without a insulating barrier between you and the rock.

a rock cave can actually drain your body heat away from you quickly , but a 2" sheet of styrofoam on the walls with a few inch air gap will pretty much insulate you from the cold or heat of the rock or dirt or block.



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
This is quite relevant to the melting of the ice-caps and should have been mentioned ages ago;

The last 16 years include the 15 HOTTEST years.



So the 15 hottest years (on record) occurred in the last 16 years;

but some morons still claim that global warming is a hoax.

If you include 2011 (which was apparently the tenth warmest year on record) you can say that the last 17 years, include the 16 hottest years on record.

But remember, according to some, global warming is not, and never will be, a problem.


Here are the anomalies in an easy to copy format:

         The last 16 years include the 15 hottest years on record.

     Overall Temperatures   Land Temperatures      Ocean Temperatures

        Year    Anomaly        Year    Anomaly        Year    Anomaly

     1  2010    +0.6441     1  2007    +1.0524     1  2003    +0.5175
     2  2005    +0.6401     2  2010    +1.0314     2  1998    +0.5136
     3  1998    +0.6212     3  2005    +1.0154     3  2010    +0.4987
     4  2003    +0.6066     4  1998    +0.9005     4  2005    +0.4973
     5  2002    +0.5970     5  2002    +0.8857     5  2009    +0.4920
     6  2006    +0.5859     6  2006    +0.8769     6  2002    +0.4871
     7  2009    +0.5835     7  2003    +0.8385     7  2004    +0.4851
     8  2007    +0.5780     8  2009    +0.8269     8  2006    +0.4752
     9  2004    +0.5648     9  2008    +0.8196     9  1997    +0.4553
    10  2001    +0.5372    10  2004    +0.7747    10  2001    +0.4465
    11  1997    +0.5070    11  2001    +0.7721    11  2007    +0.4006
    12  2008    +0.5009    12  1995    +0.7296    12  2008    +0.3808
    13  1995    +0.4382    13  1999    +0.7237    13  2000    +0.3499
    14  1999    +0.4380    14  1997    +0.6412    14  1990    +0.3299
    15  2000    +0.4151    15  2000    +0.5830    15  1999    +0.3285


The anomalies measure the difference from the 20th century average (1901-2000).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
LOOK,... Orac works for www.scienceagogo.com. What a surprise.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Interesting, if somewhat elderly, video, Paul.

You must have had something in mind when you posted it, Could it have been that scientists don't know what they are talking about?

Most of the evidence presented must be considered false by anyone who does not accept that the Earth existed when the snow they were sampling was thought to have fallen.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Don't be ridiculous, Pre. If you can't stay on the topic you may be edited. It is a sin to bear false witness.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Most of the evidence presented must be considered false by anyone who does not accept that the Earth existed when the snow they were sampling was thought to have fallen.


well bill s , that all depends now doesn't it.

I'm considering that the snow / ice / seabed / etc , dating methods could be wrong.

after all the snow and ice would have melted during the flood.

they may even date things using the things they found in ice cores , and in sea bed cores , etc...

they may consider that something found at a certain depth in an ice core translates to a certain year in history.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Most of the evidence presented must be considered false...


That seems to be - more or less - what you are saying.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 1 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