Have fun with doom & gloom

When Global Warming melts the polar ice caps, all that water has to go some where. Having fish for supper? Cook it or set a place for it?

At this website, http://flood.firetree.net/ , it's very similar to Google earth but you don't have to download or install anything. It's a map rather than photos, but you can go where you wish, then there is a feature where you can set the sea level rise in meters and see what gets inundated. It only goes to 14 meters though.

Check it out now, then take advantage of the depressed Real Estate market to buy some high ground. You will be King, or Queen, and become rich and powerful when the waterlogged lowlanders swim ashore. :yelgreedy

aye, we're doomed, all doomed.....

DOOM DOOM DOOMITY DOOM...

Sorry, Deekin moment here. :D

cool... now, does this mean I will quit having to hear about how superior new york and new yorkers are to everyone and everything?.. oh yes! when they are groveling for a nice dry place to stay I will demand that they never mention anything about the damn upper west side again!..hmm perhaps re-education camps.. er.. I mean refuge shelters.. yeah... shelters...

Everyone can come & stay at mine or my parents'. It seems the sole blessing of being at the furtherest point away from the sea in the country is not having to worry overmuch about rising sea levels....

I'm OK, but it'll only take a 2 M rise to submerge my mother-in-law's house at the beach.

What did people do about the 8" (20cm) rise last century?

Haul in truckloads of sand.

Thank goodness it turns out the problem can be addressed cheaply, over decades of time, using the most available commodity on the planet.

Mmm hmmm. And where are we going to be getting all this sand? The Middle East is where!

Not to mention the oil to fuel the trucks to haul it.

"It's the economy, stupid."

Reminds me of the Futurama clip in "An Inconvenient Truth".

Narrator: Fortunately, our handsomest politicians came up with a cheap, last-minute way to combat global warming. Ever since 2063, we simply drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every now and then.

Susie: Just like daddy puts in his drink every morning! And then he gets mad.

Narrator: Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time. Thus, solving the problem once and for all.

Susie: But...

Narrator: Once and for ALL!

I'm in a great spot... the beach just got closer, awesome.

Happy Monkey;311251 wrote:

Haul in truckloads of sand.

See, the Iraq thing is not just about oil.....

Half of Holland under water? Did they know the Dutch history? We ain't New Orleans, ya know...

Dutch engineers are gonna be a hot commodity.

Deuce;311269 wrote:

Not to mention the oil to fuel the trucks to haul it.

"It's the economy, stupid."

Happy Monkey;311251 wrote:

Haul in truckloads of sand.

monster;312035 wrote:

See, the Iraq thing is not just about oil.....

ah! now it all makes sense. :earth:

There was some scientist from Norway on the tv the other day I only caught the last part of what he was saying but he was stating that the rising of the sea waters and flooding projections are wildly over the top.
He gave an example order a drink at any bar add ice and sit and watch the ice melt and see if the glass overflows with the extra liquid.
It won't because the ice and melted water are the same weight,same displacement.

Then he's never heard of Greenland and Antarctica. If he thinks that his little Mr. Wizard science knowledge wasn't taken into account, he's deluded. My guess is that he knew he was BSing, but hoped his listeners wouldn't.

be-bop;312190 wrote:

There was some scientist from Norway on the tv the other day I only caught the last part of what he was saying but he was stating that the rising of the sea waters and flooding projections are wildly over the top.
He gave an example order a drink at any bar add ice and sit and watch the ice melt and see if the glass overflows with the extra liquid.
It won't because the ice and melted water are the same weight,same displacement.

For those too drunk or too stupid to see the fallacy of this argument, please proceed with the experiment, but to make it match the real world scenario, fill the glass and mark the level of the liquid. Then put the ice in. **make sure you put in enough ice so that the ice touches the bottom of the glass and extends above the surface of the liquid.* Now, as it melts, watch the level. Get back to me on the result, eh?

The ice in Greenland and Antartica is considerable. The reason it will contribute to the rising of the sea levels is because it's not *in* the sea now. It's on land.

United Nations worst case scenario is sea level up 1 meter by 2100, according to Space dot com. ;)

Don't think I'll be around for that. :bolt:



28

BTW, we live on the central FL ridge, the highest point within 50mi of the coast on the Eastern shore of the US... no lie. The rest of the US slopes more gradually than it does here.
Gonna' cost ya' a blow job ta' sleep in my back yard.

The ice in Greenland and Antartica is considerable. The reason it will contribute to the rising of the sea levels is because it's not *in* the sea now. It's on land.

Somehow they seem to forget that Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years by 0.7 degrees per decade.

The Climate Shock and Awe campaign has started. Sevel level rise is another doom scenario from the alarmists like Al Bore. Over 1,000s of years the rate of sea-level rise has been linear over this time period and shows no indication of the pronounced mid-20th-century increase.

If one took the time to read the IPCC 2001 report, one would have read: “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” Although since the publication of the IPCC 2001 report, a few studies have been published which report to have found evidence of sea level rise acceleration. However, the jury is still way out on this issue. It's impossible that Word Climate has changed dramatically since 2001.

rkzenrage;312293 wrote:

BTW, we live on the central FL ridge, the highest point within 50mi of the coast on the Eastern shore of the US... no lie. The rest of the US slopes more gradually than it does here.
Gonna' cost ya' a blow job ta' sleep in my back yard.

The Geography of Florida web page wrote:

The highest point in Florida is Britton Hill, Lakewood Park in Walton County and is only 345 feet above sea level. Walton County is located in the Florida Panhandle.

Wikipedia wrote:

Cadillac Mountain is the highest coastal point on the East Coast of the United States, at 1,532 feet. It is located near Bar Harbor, Maine, within Acadia National Park.

Hmm...

What about all the erosion of land mass by rivers over the eons of time that has resulted in millions of tons of minerals being deposited in estuaries which has then been taken out to sea by the action of tides and waves?

Wouldn't this have added to the amount of solid matter in the area of sea water, thereby, basis relying upon good old Archimedes and his discovery of relative density, causing that water to rise up higher against the remaining land mass (body in bath principle)?

Has this happened?

If 9/10ths of an iceberg remains below water anyway and water expands when frozen why haven't these monster objects let alone the ice land-mass had the same Archimedes effect?

Maybe the waters will actually fall - maybe we should all go down to the beach with a bucket and spade and cart a bucketfull of sand back inland each day to try to reverse the effect - maybe it's not such a bad idea to buy a beachside property after all....

I couldn't find any recent photos of the earth's polor ice caps. I did find a photo of melting ice caps. Scientists know the earths ice caps are melting at 9 % per decade.


This photo is 7 years old.

I did find this site to be informative.
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/crosscutting/climate.html

In May 2005, scientists concluded the Earth is absorbing more of the sun's energy than is being emitted back into space, disrupting the planet's energy balance and resulting in global warming.

Cyclefrance;312398 wrote:

Hmm...

What about all the erosion of land mass by rivers over the eons of time that has resulted in millions of tons of minerals being deposited in estuaries which has then been taken out to sea by the action of tides and waves?

Wouldn't this have added to the amount of solid matter in the area of sea water, thereby, basis relying upon good old Archimedes and his discovery of relative density, causing that water to rise up higher against the remaining land mass (body in bath principle)?

Has this happened?

If 9/10ths of an iceberg remains below water anyway and water expands when frozen why haven't these monster objects let alone the ice land-mass had the same Archimedes effect?

Maybe the waters will actually fall - maybe we should all go down to the beach with a bucket and spade and cart a bucketfull of sand back inland each day to try to reverse the effect - maybe it's not such a bad idea to buy a beachside property after all....

Hmm. Archimedes demonstrated *displacement* not relative density.

wrt icebergs, it's irrelevant what the percentage is above and below the waterline, if they're floating. If they're floating, the waterlevel is unchanged whether the ice melts or not (not including the expansion of the seawater as it's heated). But for ice that is not floating, like the vast amounts of ice in Antartica that are thousands of feet thick and rest on the land. When that ice enters the water, the level of the water will rise. Just ask Archimedes.

Hmm again - I thought relative density was about displacement anyway - the volume of water an object displaced in relationship to its weight or the other way around, or something - mind you it was a long time ago and I never followed the science path when the time came to take the split (1962 I think!)

So what's the difference between millions of tons of sediment and minerals eroded into the sea on the one hand, and ice on land that ends up in the same place on the other - with 2/3rds of the planet being water and god knows how deep overall will the addition of the ice caps volume really impact as much as is thought?

Global warming, and the increase in evaporation leading to a more turbulent water cycle and consequent weather system changes is something I can relate to, but I just wonder why we haven't seen water levels rise dramatically already through natural erosion processes - if you put more land into the sea then by rights the sea has only one place to go, upwards, but that isn't so evident.

And if the ice caps do make a difference, then how much would it take to remove x million tons of tidal covered coastline to higher ground to accommodate the equivalent of the ice caps mass - maybe a few billion buckets (one per person of the world's population) would do it.

Probably screwed up logic, but it's Friday and been a long week

o/t displacement v relative density:

take a bucket of water. blow up a balloon. dunk the balloon in the bucket. water is displaced.

take another bucket of water. take a deep breath. dunk your head in the bucket. water is displaced.

therefore, class? you have a head full of air? johnny, sit silently in the corner, that was rude and uncalled for. the water is displaced because of the volume of the object immersed in the water, irrespective of the density of the object.

density is mass per volume. it only appears to apply here because of the extremely rare property of water, that it expands when cooled. not that cool water is rarer (though it's becoming rarer), but that very few other materials behave likewise. people see ice (water) "floating" in water and they're observing the relative difference in density of the same material (water).

as to your second question, sediment causing sea levels to rise versus melting landbound ice causing sea levels to rise...

Given the subject of the thread, the sediment contribution is much less dramatically affected by an increase in temperature compared to glaciers' vulnerability to rising temperatures. Of course, the sediment is moved into the sea by erosion, excepting wind borne sand and dust (like in the Sahara).

But for ice that is not floating, like the vast amounts of ice in Antartica that are thousands of feet thick and rest on the land. When that ice enters the water, the level of the water will rise. Just ask Archimedes.

Archimedes probably wouldn´t know what would happen with the climate 2300 years later, but with the Southern Hemisphere cooling down this question is highly hypothetical and therefore irrelevent. In fact Antarctica is gaining, which is contributing negative to loss of Arctic ice, a fact rarely mentioned. BTW 90% of Earth ice mass is on Antarctica.

Hippikos;312530 wrote:

Archimedes probably wouldn´t know what would happen with the climate 2300 years later, but with the Southern Hemisphere cooling down this question is highly hypothetical and therefore irrelevent. In fact Antarctica is gaining, which is contributing negative to loss of Arctic ice, a fact rarely mentioned. BTW 90% of Earth ice mass is on Antarctica.

Southern Hemisphere cooling down this question is highly hypothetical and therefore irrelevent*

cite please?

Antarctica is gaining**, which is contributing negative to loss of Arctic ice, a fact rarely mentioned.

cite please?

90% of Earth ice mass is on Antarctica.

True.

* ahhh, bullshit. how can you exempt a part of the planet as "irrelevant" when it comes to global climate change? Unless you're saying it's irrelevant because it's false. BTW, it is false.

** more bullshit. "Antarctica is losing about 36 cubic miles of ice per year."

BigV;312492 wrote:

density is mass per volume. it only appears to apply here because of the extremely rare property of water, that it expands when cooled. not that cool water is rarer (though it's becoming rarer), but that very few other materials behave likewise. people see ice (water) "floating" in water and they're observing the relative difference in density of the same material (water).

Water increases density (shrinks) until it gets to 39.2 deg F, where it reaches maximum density. from 39.2 down to 32 deg F, water decreases density (expands). It expands again during phase change from water to ice, then as the ice gets colder, for a couple of degrees,it continues to expand. From that point the ice shrinks as it gets colder, but will never reach the density of water. That's why ice(bergs) float.:cool:

** more bullshit. "Antarctica is losing about 36 cubic miles of ice per year."

They are making this new (and of course disputed) claim, because the 2 GRACE satellites measure variations in Earth's mass and gravitational pull: Increases or decreases in the Antarctic ice sheet's mass change the distance between the satellites as they fly over the region.

Wow, how in hell do the calibrate something like that? The fluctuations have to be minute. :eek:

cite

Such a pity nobody believes my blue eyes...

Davis, C. H., et al., 2005. Snowfall-driven growth in East Antarctic ice sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise. Science, 308, 1898-1901.

Rignot, E., and P. Kanagaratnam, 2006. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland ice sheet. Science, 31, 986-990.

Vaughn, D.G., 2005. How does the Antarctic ice sheet affect sea level rise? Science, 308, 1877-1878.

Church, J.A. and J.M. Gregory. 2001: Changes in sea level, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 641–693.,UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wingham, D.J., A. Shepherd, A. Muir, and G.J. Marshall. 2006: Mass balance of the
Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 364, 1627-1635.


Plus amongst others publicized in Nature and a simple math even you can do: Arctic looses ice (positive contribution), Antarctic gaines ice (negative contribution).


From Davis et al the below graph:


As usual nature has it ups and downs as shown in above graph. Sharp declines in 95 and 01 are "gefundenes fressen" for alarmists like Al Bore with his dramatic breaking ice shelves images. The long term trend since 92 however is upwards.

more bullshit. "Antarctica is losing about 36 cubic miles of ice per year."

More drama. I raise your one Wash Post article with 6:

“As climate shifts, Antarctic ice sheet is growing” –Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2005

“Scientists link global warming to Antarctic’s ice cap’s growth” –Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2005

“Antarctica ice cap thickens” –Pittsburgh Post Gazette, May 20, 2005

“Warming is blamed for Antarctic’s weight gain” –New York Times, May 20, 2005

“Ice sheet confounds climate theory” – The Telegraph, May 20, 2005

“Antarctica ice cap thickens, slowing rise in sea levels” – Pioneer Press, May 20, 2005


Most of the decrease in ice on Antarctica is on the Western Pensinsula. The, much bigger, Eastern part has an increase of ice mass, which of course is conveniently forgotten by the AGW Taliban.

I won't dispute global warming itself but I do dispute the various scarey scenarios which are run out. The global climate system is still too complex to predict. Global Warming Theory is flawed because it fails at the most basic level, it isn't predictive. The spinners keep spinning their new catastrophe of the week because they think selling fear is the only way to go. They are defeating their own cause if they over-do the sky is falling routine.

Has anyone heard any more about the cold water 'chimneys' that fed the Labrador current (I think) from the Arctic ice cap. They were supposed to be disappearing with the expected effect to be a weakening of the Gulf Stream that gives the British Isles its tenmperate climate - BTW, looking back to the old school days of A level exams for a moment, and one geography question in my paper was: 'Britain doesn't have a climate, only weather - discuss' You don't have to stay here long to know how true that is - but if the Gulf Stream weakens then we will see less of the 'four-seasons-in-one-day' we enjoy (enjoy?) and more distinct divides between winter and summer - hasn't happened yet though...

Apparently not