Sea Level Rise Maps for Oz - Page 3

Cosmick (Mick) · #41 26-12-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

Yeah! These stupid scientists never know what they are talking about. I read this weird thoery about the earth going around the sun. Well, as any idiot can check, the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west--clearly it goes around the earth. Oh, and don't get me started on this round earth theory. If it was round how come us guys at the bottom don't fall off. Stupid scientists!

Yes. I am amazed and appalled at the amount of anti-science sentiment displayed in this thread. This is the same science that has given us modern medicine, electronics, physics, geology, materials science (CCD's and CMOS) and all the other wonders of modern life.
Real science is not done in the popular press - it is done in peer reviewed science journals where the data is available to be checked and tested by others.

el_draco (Rom) · #42 26-12-2010, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmick

Yes. I am amazed and appalled at the amount of anti-science sentiment displayed in this thread. This is the same science that has given us modern medicine, electronics, physics, geology, materials science (CCD's and CMOS) and all the other wonders of modern life.
Real science is not done in the popular press - it is done in peer reviewed science journals where the data is available to be checked and tested by others.

Ahmen to that brother.

miki63au · #43 26-12-2010, 03:57 PM

"...done in peer reviewed science journals where the data is available to be checked and tested by others...."

I whish the data available for the aGW theory, with no political
interference!
All the temp. record and adjustement are classified. Way???

In the communist regime this kind of controle is "normal" .

BUT WE ARE NOT IN A COMMUNIST REGIME!! YET...

marki · #44 26-12-2010, 07:17 PM

I am suprised no one has brought this up yet but water is one of a few compounds that has greater volume in the solid form than liquid form so shouldn't the sea levels drop rather then rise? Most of antartica is solid rock so it's only the artic that we need to worry about. I would love to see the calaculations that predict such dire changes if they melt. A low lying sand island yes, a whole continent, I doubt it.

Mark

el_draco (Rom) · #45 26-12-2010, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

I am suprised no one has brought this up yet but water is one of a few compounds that has greater volume in the solid form than liquid form so shouldn't the sea levels drop rather then rise? Most of antartica is solid rock so it's only the artic that we need to worry about. I would love to see the calaculations that predict such dire changes if they melt. A low lying sand island yes, a whole continent, I doubt it.

Mark

Its more complicated than that. As ice melts it contributes more volume to the oceans, not an issue with the North Pole, but a net +ve contribution from Antactica and Greenland. As the oceans warm, they expand which will cause further flooding. However, the flooding is not a particulalrly serious issue unless you are in low areas. If the northern Permafrost melts, thats probably it folks. The amount of Methane that will be released will be mind blowing.

glenc (Glen) · #46 27-12-2010, 05:06 AM

Well said Rom.
Here are the details http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...g1/en/ch5.html

rcheshire (Rowland) · #47 27-12-2010, 09:51 AM

Quote:

The amount of Methane that will be released will be mind blowing.

And you think farting in the lift is a problem...!

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #48 27-12-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_draco

If the northern Permafrost melts, thats probably it folks. The amount of Methane that will be released will be mind blowing.

As an aside.
As it's melting, it's offering up the remains of Mammoths, who died during the last major climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...climate-change

marki · #49 27-12-2010, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_draco

Its more complicated than that. As ice melts it contributes more volume to the oceans, not an issue with the North Pole, but a net +ve contribution from Antactica and Greenland. As the oceans warm, they expand which will cause further flooding. However, the flooding is not a particulalrly serious issue unless you are in low areas. If the northern Permafrost melts, thats probably it folks. The amount of Methane that will be released will be mind blowing.

Ah yes but this thread is not about methane, its about flooding due to the ice caps melting.

Mark

el_draco (Rom) · #50 27-12-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

Ah yes but this thread is not about methane, its about flooding due to the ice caps melting.

Mark

If the Methane is released from the permafrost, the greenhouse effect will be hundreds of times worse. Greenland will go like a rocket and Antarctica will follow. I believe both landmasses have been forced downward by the weight of ice they carry, so if they then rise, I dont even want to know what the combined impact would be in terms of flooding. The Antarctic ice mass, from memory, is about 900 million cubic kilometres. Toss that in the the Southern ocean and I suspect the question on most of our minds will be, "how long can I tread water"...

rmcconachy · #51 27-12-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

I am suprised no one has brought this up yet but water is one of a few compounds that has greater volume in the solid form than liquid form so shouldn't the sea levels drop rather then rise? Most of antartica is solid rock so it's only the artic that we need to worry about. I would love to see the calaculations that predict such dire changes if they melt. A low lying sand island yes, a whole continent, I doubt it.

Mark

Archimedes solved this problem about two and a quarter thousand years ago <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy#Archimedes.27_principle> but you can check it out for yourself. Half fill a glass with water and add some ice cubes. Mark the level of the water and then check it again after the ice cubes melt, the level will not have changed. Why? As you mention above, ice is less dense than water but some of the ice is floating above the water line. The extra volume that the ice fills compared with the same mass of water is the same as the volume of the portion of the ice cubes above the water line before they melt.

Given the above example, it should hopefully make sense that the melting of floating ice will not increase or decrease sea levels at a first approximation (I'm not going into flow on effects like changes in albedo, etc). The ice that will affect sea levels if it melts is the stuff that is not floating, e.g., much of the Antarctic ice sheet, the Greenland ice sheet, glaciers, etc. If they melt you get new water added to the oceans (in the example above this would be like adding a new ice cube to the glass after marking the water level).

Let's take one example, the Greenland ice sheet which Wikipedia says contains about 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice. This volume seems reasonable since the ice sheet is crudely 2,250km (long) x 650km (wide) x 2km (thick). The surface area of a sphere is 4 x pi x r^2 which means the Earth has an approximate surface area of 4 x 3.14 x 6,000^2 or 452,160,000 square kilometers. Dividing 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice by 452,160,000 square kilometers yields a water level rise of about 0.0063km or 6.3m. So if the Greenland ice sheet melted the sea level would rise by about 6m (actually a bit more since I've ignored the fact that about a quarter of the Earth is already more than this height above sea level).

Does that make sense Mark? You can do similar calculations for other ice sources (e.g., the Antarctic ice sheet which is about ten times the volume of the Greenland one). Despite some people's claims, most of the data needed to follow at least the basics of all this stuff is freely available if you care to put some effort into looking around.

marki · #52 27-12-2010, 06:22 PM

Ah yes the old archimedes trick. But tell me, there are 7 types of ice bound in the polar ice caps, for which type will his principle work? The clathrate structure changes with pressure and temp at which the ice was formed so all ice is definately not equal. I had a thought about the methane, perhaps it would be better to have it released as we could pipe it as the caps melt and use it for an energy source. I could put my new boat on gas

. This just becomes more of a win win situation for me.

Mark

rmcconachy · #53 27-12-2010, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

Ah yes the old archimedes trick. But tell me, there are 7 types of ice bound in the polar ice caps, for which type will his principle work? The clathrate structure changes with pressure and temp at which the ice was formed so all ice is definately not equal. I had a thought about the methane, perhaps it would be better to have it released as we could pipe it as the caps melt and use it for an energy source. I could put my new boat on gas

. This just becomes more of a win win situation for me.

Mark

Archimedes principle applies to any floating object. As for the non-floating ice, the type that most matters, if you melt it then the sea levels must rise. Details such as precise ice types make only a tiny difference to the end result. If avoiding the point (your own) and throwing out red herrings like this is your thing then go for it, I was trying to answer what I thought was a genuine question. Have fun with the boat.

marki · #54 27-12-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmcconachy

Archimedes principle applies to any floating object. As for the non-floating ice, the type that most matters, if you melt it then the sea levels must rise. Details such as precise ice types make only a tiny difference to the end result. If avoiding the point (your own) and throwing out red herrings like this is your thing then go for it, I was trying to answer what I thought was a genuine question. Have fun with the boat.

Threads like this should only ever be taken in fun. Not too worry I have a reasonable mathematics and science background and am well aware of the predicted consequences of our actions, just not totally convinced.

Cheers

Mark

el_draco (Rom) · #55 27-12-2010, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

Threads like this should only ever be taken in fun. Not too worry I have a reasonable mathematics and science background and am well aware of the predicted consequences of our actions, just not totally convinced.

Cheers

Mark

What worries me is that anyone would need to be "totally convinced". Earths systems are dynamic and imensely complex and the only way to be totally certain of the outcome is to do nothing. Thats not something I want to contemplate.

When you have one toss of the coin, you better be damn certain of the results. I am not prepared to take the risk that the vast majority of scientists are wrong and since the numb nuts we have as leaders around the world dont have the balls to act, its up to the individual... as usual.

Maybe you should stick a sail on your boat and call it a yacht.

marki · #56 27-12-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_draco

What worries me is that anyone would need to be "totally convinced". Earths systems are dynamic and imensely complex and the only way to be totally certain of the outcome is to do nothing. Thats not something I want to contemplate.

When you have one toss of the coin, you better be damn certain of the results. I am not prepared to take the risk that the vast majority of scientists are wrong and since the numb nuts we have as leaders around the world dont have the balls to act, its up to the individual... as usual.

Maybe you should stick a sail on your boat and call it a yacht.

Well I guess I need to clarify my "not convinced" as it seems to be causing some grief. I should have said I dont care.

Cheers

Mark

el_draco (Rom) · #57 27-12-2010, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marki

Well I guess I need to clarify my "not convinced" as it seems to be causing some grief. I should have said I dont care.

Cheers

Mark

Which is precisely the problem... and it would appear that this thread has become pretty meaningless so I wont bother posting to it anymore.

strongmanmike (Michael) · #58 27-12-2010, 10:55 PM

The climate change sceptic argument is proving to be a collective kind of white noise designed to sew seads of doubt and reminds me of Nick Naylor in "Thankyou for Smoking"

Mike

marki · #59 27-12-2010, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el_draco

Which is precisely the problem... and it would appear that this thread has become pretty meaningless so I wont bother posting to it anymore.

Just trying to add some humour to a very dry topic.

Mark

Trixie (Carey) · #60 28-12-2010, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Well I guess I need to clarify my "not convinced" as it seems to be causing some grief. I should have said I dont care.

Humour or not, this seems to be the case for most people who claim to be sceptics. It would explain why the same old feeble arguements are being thrown up again and again. It makes me sad to know there are so many who care so little about the world....