70 Metre Rise In Sea Level?

[stilicho]

Using my handy slide rule and easy-to-find calculations of the volume of the land-based icecaps, I came up with a 70-metre sea level rise if the Greenland and Antarctic sheets melted. I did not factor in the density of H2O in different states at various temperatures, nor did I include the change in elevation of the land masses currently icebound. I also figured that the time it will take is about 125 years, if the one-metre projected rise in the next twenty is accurate, and if the rate of melting increases exponentially. I did not include other high elevation glacial melting but the volume of glacial non-polar ice is small compared to those two regions.

Apart from the mere inconvenience of adapting to a 70-metre rise in the sea levels, is there any good reason we couldn't accommodate that? It sounds like an astonishing opportunity for capital investment, and the rate is not fast enough to outweigh the returns.

Alternately, is this 'worst-case' scenario flawed, and if so how? My casual reading of 'worst-cases' in the Ordovician and other eras show that sea levels could be higher but only if somehow the continents sank instead of rose.

[macdoc]

Somewhere in that range but 1 meter puts 1 billion at risk - 70 meters is unimaginable - you'd be looking at a totally altered continental look.

Even worst case tho puts that millenia out - far longer than modern civilization has been around.

The kicker in this tho is that the ice is a terrific climate moderator.

Without that ice even now th eextra energy iont he geophysical system would make for rather ..ahem..interesting times.....:boggled:
Here - go nuts

http://flood.firetree.net/

Kiss london goodbye at 14 meters

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture73-2.jpg

and New York

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture74.jpg

and Tokyo even at 14 meters...grab a water taxi..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture75.jpg

at 70 meters.....all gone.

oh yeah = Miami and the Bahamas at 14 meters - our newest diving parks.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture76.jpg

[stilicho]

Somewhere in that range but 1 meter puts 1 billion at risk - 70 meters is unimaginable - you'd be looking at a totally altered continental look.

Even worst case tho puts that millenia out - far longer than modern civilization has been around.

The kicker in this tho is that the ice is a terrific climate moderator.

Without that ice even now th eextra energy iont he geophysical system would make for rather ..ahem..interesting times.....:boggled:
Here - go nuts

http://flood.firetree.net/

Kiss london goodbye at 14 meters

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture73-2.jpg

and New York

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture74.jpg

and Tokyo even at 14 meters...grab a water taxi..

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture75.jpg

at 70 meters.....all gone.

oh yeah = Miami and the Bahamas at 14 meters - our newest diving parks.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture76.jpg

London doesn't always have to be London. Were my estimates too quick? Do we have the allocation of capital to make my scheme work?

[NobbyNobbs]

Somewhere in that range but 1 meter puts 1 billion at risk - 70 meters is unimaginable - you'd be looking at a totally altered continental look.

Even worst case tho puts that millenia out - far longer than modern civilization has been around.

The kicker in this tho is that the ice is a terrific climate moderator.

Without that ice even now th eextra energy iont he geophysical system would make for rather ..ahem..interesting times.....:boggled:


Cool...did you make those pics, or is there a site where you put in the rise in sea level and it shows the result?

[macdoc]

Wanna try Bangladesh

http://flood.firetree.net/

It's max is only 20% of the OPs postulate - Kennedy Space Centre would be a hour's boat ride offshore at 14 meters.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture77.jpg

At OPs level - Florida is no more.

nor is Bangladesh even at 14 meters.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture78-2.jpg

even at 7 m Bangladesh is gone -with 1 meter - 100 million have to move

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Picture79.jpg

[Smackety]

Hope you all like Denver! Population : 75 Million

[macdoc]

Indeed - not many earthquakes either.:thumbsup:

[cwalner]

Nice pictures Macdoc.

What you put me in mind of is that before modern technology, living by major waterways (large rivers, oceans) was practically a requirement for civilization. As a result most major population centers can be found in such locations.

I have not looked at the numbers, but I would not be very surprised if over 75% of the world population would be displaced by a 70-meter rise in sea level.

[Damien Evans]

Nice pictures Macdoc.

What you put me in mind of is that before modern technology, living by major waterways (large rivers, oceans) was practically a requirement for civilization. As a result most major population centers can be found in such locations.

I have not looked at the numbers, but I would not be very surprised if over 75% of the world population would be displaced by a 70-meter rise in sea level.

I know more than that percent of Aussies would be displaced. I'd estimate 85%.

[TrueSceptic]

I know more than that percent of Aussies would be displaced. I'd estimate 85%.
I wonder: is there another country with a higher %age of its population living on the coast, i.e. with x miles of the sea (where x is, say 5 or 10 miles)?

At least they have plenty of land to move into.

[TrueSceptic]

Wanna try Bangladesh

http://flood.firetree.net/

That is a great site. Is there a way of putting other values in, like 20, 30, 50 m?

[cwalner]

I know more than that percent of Aussies would be displaced. I'd estimate 85%.

somehting like this? (from 8-bit theater)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_26950497b15d495745.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14987)

[INRM]

It would be messed up to have to take a submarine down to where your hometown was...

INRM

[CapelDodger]

What you put me in mind of is that before modern technology, living by major waterways (large rivers, oceans) was practically a requirement for civilization. As a result most major population centers can be found in such locations.

It's also worth noting that the most fertile soils (apart from volcanic deposits, which have their own obvious problems) are on floodplains and river deltas.

[CapelDodger]

Using my handy slide rule and easy-to-find calculations of the volume of the land-based icecaps, I came up with a 70-metre sea level rise if the Greenland and Antarctic sheets melted. I did not factor in the density of H2O in different states at various temperatures, nor did I include the change in elevation of the land masses currently icebound. I also figured that the time it will take is about 125 years, if the one-metre projected rise in the next twenty is accurate, and if the rate of melting increases exponentially. I did not include other high elevation glacial melting but the volume of glacial non-polar ice is small compared to those two regions.

I don't see why the rate of melting should increase exponentially. Also, "one metre in twenty years" is a pretty extreme forecast - a metre this century is more mainstream. A seventy metre rise would take many centuries, if not thousands of years. We could maybe lose most of Greenland's ice in a few hundred (most of Greenland is below sea-level so once the ocean breaks in things will really get moving) but it's physically difficult to get all that ice off East Antarctica - it all has to come off one side because of the Antarctic mountain range on the other.

[NobbyNobbs]

At 14 m, half of Philadelphia is gone. But not only is my house safe, it becomes a waterfront property!

[BenBurch]

I don't see why the rate of melting should increase exponentially. Also, "one metre in twenty years" is a pretty extreme forecast - a metre this century is more mainstream. A seventy metre rise would take many centuries, if not thousands of years. We could maybe lose most of Greenland's ice in a few hundred (most of Greenland is below sea-level so once the ocean breaks in things will really get moving) but it's physically difficult to get all that ice off East Antarctica - it all has to come off one side because of the Antarctic mountain range on the other.

If greenland melts slowly enough the land mass will rise somewhat blunting that effect. Most of the northern land massed sunk under the weight of ice and in fact Scandinavia is still rising from it at a rate we can now measure with modern satellite geodesy.

[Molinaro]

Move to Toronto and you will be saved! Lake Ontario is 75m above sea level. :)

[TrueSceptic]

I don't see why the rate of melting should increase exponentially. Also, "one metre in twenty years" is a pretty extreme forecast - a metre this century is more mainstream. A seventy metre rise would take many centuries, if not thousands of years. We could maybe lose most of Greenland's ice in a few hundred (most of Greenland is below sea-level so once the ocean breaks in things will really get moving) but it's physically difficult to get all that ice off East Antarctica - it all has to come off one side because of the Antarctic mountain range on the other.
What do you mean by "breaks in"? As I understand it, Greenland is dished due to the weight of ice, with the centre the furthest below sea-level. It would take a lot for the ice to get into the sea, and if it melted in situ a huge lake would form.

[CapelDodger]

If greenland melts slowly enough the land mass will rise somewhat blunting that effect. Most of the northern land massed sunk under the weight of ice and in fact Scandinavia is still rising from it at a rate we can now measure with modern satellite geodesy.

Scotland is still rebounding from the last glaciation, which is an indication of how slow the process is. It's not nearly rapid enough to make any difference in Greenland.

[stilicho]

I don't see why the rate of melting should increase exponentially. Also, "one metre in twenty years" is a pretty extreme forecast - a metre this century is more mainstream. A seventy metre rise would take many centuries, if not thousands of years. We could maybe lose most of Greenland's ice in a few hundred (most of Greenland is below sea-level so once the ocean breaks in things will really get moving) but it's physically difficult to get all that ice off East Antarctica - it all has to come off one side because of the Antarctic mountain range on the other.

I thought it might increase exponentially just because natural systems appear to behave that way.

I am concerned, of course, about the loss of agricultural land and areas such as The Netherlands. But isn't adaptation to this scenario plausible?

I am interested in why you think the ice cap melting wouldn't be exponential. I tried it in a glass of water and heat does seem to reduce the size of the ice cubes faster until they are all gone.

[stilicho]

What do you mean by "breaks in"? As I understand it, Greenland is dished due to the weight of ice, with the centre the furthest below sea-level. It would take a lot for the ice to get into the sea, and if it melted in situ a huge lake would form.

Is that true? I thought the mass of the ice was what kept the land masses down. Is there an example of a land mass that stayed down once the ice was removed?

[CapelDodger]

What do you mean by "breaks in"? As I understand it, Greenland is dished due to the weight of ice, with the centre the furthest below sea-level. It would take a lot for the ice to get into the sea, and if it melted in situ a huge lake would form.

Greenland is bowl-shaped, with (as I understand it) some low points around the rim. If sea-level rises enough to push ocean water through the low-points it will speed up the ice-loss considerably. I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon, though.

[CapelDodger]

I thought it might increase exponentially just because natural systems appear to behave that way.

I am concerned, of course, about the loss of agricultural land and areas such as The Netherlands. But isn't adaptation to this scenario plausible?

I am interested in why you think the ice cap melting wouldn't be exponential. I tried it in a glass of water and heat does seem to reduce the size of the ice cubes faster until they are all gone.

If you keep the ice-cube above the melt-water (say, balanced on a bottle-cap or some such) you'll see that it melts much more slowly. Ice absorbs heat from water much more readily than from air. (If you build an ice-house the first thing you need to ensure is good drainage.)

The ice on Greenland and Antarctica is not in contact with water (except at the margins, of course). It can only gain energy from radiation and from contact with the atmosphere. If ocean-water gets under the Greenland ice that will change, of course, but that can't happen on Antarctica. A full melt of Greenland would be about seven metres, as I recall, so Antarctica holds ~ 90% of the total ice.

As to adaptation, tell that to the Dutch :). A few metres and they're gone, and it's much the same for Denmark. East Anglia would be an archipelago. (Fortunately my mother and my sister's family live at one of the highest points of Suffolk, two of my nephews are into sailing, and my brother-in-law's a civil engineer so the future looks reasonably bright for them.)

[CapelDodger]

Is that true? I thought the mass of the ice was what kept the land masses down. Is there an example of a land mass that stayed down once the ice was removed?

The land mass will rise, but very slowly. It involves plastic deformation of the underlying rock, which will flow back under the previously depressed land. In the UK that means that Scotland is gradually rising while the South-East is sinking (as the underlying rock flows northward). The floor of the Baltic is also rising, as can be seen from beach-lines and one-time ports that are now quite far inland.

The ice-caps have been gone for ten thousand years, so as you can see the process is very slow.

[luchog]

hrm... looking at the map for the Seattle area, our steep, mountainous terrain means that very little will actually be affected. Seattle proper wouldn't lose more than a a bit of the waterfront and a few downtown streets.

Farther south, huge swaths of Kent and Renton would be flooded out, as would large sections of Georgetown/South Park, as well as Fremont on the north end. Many would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing. :) (True Seattle natives never pass up a chance for a good Renton joke.)

[BenBurch]

hrm... looking at the map for the Seattle area, our steep, mountainous terrain means that very little will actually be affected. Seattle proper wouldn't lose more than a a bit of the waterfront and a few downtown streets.

Farther south, huge swaths of Kent and Renton would be flooded out, as would large sections of Georgetown/South Park, as well as Fremont on the north end. Many would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing. :) (True Seattle natives never pass up a chance for a good Renton joke.)

As long as you lose Federal Way, too, you can consider it a benefit.

[CapelDodger]

Farther south, huge swaths of Kent and Renton would be flooded out, as would large sections of Georgetown/South Park, as well as Fremont on the north end. Many would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing. :) (True Seattle natives never pass up a chance for a good Renton joke.)

True Londoners never pass up a Kent joke (lots of that will go), and as for Essex, well, only comedians will miss it.

Things don't look too clever for Cardiff in the long term, though, unless Torchwood can come up with something.

[rjh01]

At least Australia will be safe from floods. That is occurring to the link provided. Mind you I think Australia may suffer badly from lack of rainfall due to climate warming.

[stilicho]

As long as you lose Federal Way, too, you can consider it a benefit.

Is that sort of like Wetaskiwin's "Auto Mile"?

http://www.pbase.com/poundstone/image/68851273

Capeldodger: I admit my "experiment" has its drawbacks. But is the rate of sea ice loss increasing now while the rate of ice cap loss is steady? And does the sea ice loss have a bearing on sea levels?

[macdoc]

Sea ice loss has no bearing on sea levels.

Only net glacial mass loss does. ( and tundra melt )

For Greenland it's been as high as 220 cu km in 2005 and varies a bit year to year.

Globally it's maybe 3 x that.

There is a bit too much concentration on near term sea level rise but it's canary as once set in motion - positive feedbacks make complete melt just about inevitable and we can never mitigate that - the energies are too great as we are seeing with the Arctic cover drop.

Many feel Greenland IS gone but still any complete melt is millenia away unless we get into the 6 degrees C global rise then the sea level rise is the least of our concerns. :popcorn1

[TrueSceptic]

Is that true? I thought the mass of the ice was what kept the land masses down. Is there an example of a land mass that stayed down once the ice was removed?
Yes, but how quickly does isostatic rebound take place? And if the ice stays where it is, melted or not, the weight is not being removed, is it?

[TrueSceptic]

Greenland is bowl-shaped, with (as I understand it) some low points around the rim. If sea-level rises enough to push ocean water through the low-points it will speed up the ice-loss considerably. I don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon, though.
I can't see that happening either.

[macdoc]

The greater risk to ocean infiltration is in the western Antarctic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet

[Damien Evans]

I wonder: is there another country with a higher %age of its population living on the coast, i.e. with x miles of the sea (where x is, say 5 or 10 miles)?

At least they have plenty of land to move into.

Most of which is also very low lying.

We'd be running to the dividing range.

[TrueSceptic]

Most of which is also very low lying.

We'd be running to the dividing range.
+14 m makes little difference. Is there a way of seeing the effects of higher rises?

[BenBurch]

Is that sort of like Wetaskiwin's "Auto Mile"?



Except with massage parlors, streetwalkers, and a plentiful crack supply... Unless its gotten better in the last decade...

[Damien Evans]

+14 m makes little difference. Is there a way of seeing the effects of higher rises?

Little difference? There'd be well over 2 million displaced from Melbourne alone.

[Megalodon]

+14 m makes little difference. Is there a way of seeing the effects of higher rises?

Depends what you mean by little... +1 would flood a number of cities only in North Germany.

[TrueSceptic]

Most of which is also very low lying.

We'd be running to the dividing range.

Little difference? There'd be well over 2 million displaced from Melbourne alone.
That was in response to the above, which is about land to move into, not the population affected.

[TrueSceptic]

Depends what you mean by little... +1 would flood a number of cities only in North Germany.
That was purely about Australia, and related to land area affected, not population.

[Old Bob]

70 meter rise? did you mean 70mm. Where do you get those silly estimates from. From the latest info we are cooling. Past times when the Vikings lived and grew crops on Greenland the world temp. was much higher than now so much more ice must have melted. Ancient maps show the ant-Arctic with out ice and with out inundation how else could they have known that it is in two sections,which has only recently been proven with deep radar scans. Chicken Little comes to mind.

[Damien Evans]

70 meter rise? did you mean 70mm. Where do you get those silly estimates from. From the latest info we are cooling. Past times when the Vikings lived and grew crops on Greenland the world temp. was much higher than now so much more ice must have melted. Ancient maps show the ant-Arctic with out ice and with out inundation how else could they have known that it is in two sections,which has only recently been proven with deep radar scans. Chicken Little comes to mind.

Feel free to not spew forth your ignorant ravings here.

[Megalodon]

70 meter rise? did you mean 70mm. Where do you get those silly estimates from. From the latest info we are cooling. Past times when the Vikings lived and grew crops on Greenland the world temp. was much higher than now so much more ice must have melted. Ancient maps show the ant-Arctic with out ice and with out inundation how else could they have known that it is in two sections,which has only recently been proven with deep radar scans. Chicken Little comes to mind.

You wouldn't mind providing some evidence for all those interesting assertions of yours, would you?

Namely:

That the global temperature is dropping (hint: it's not. Of the 10 warmest years on record, 8 were in this decade, plus 98 and 97. 2008 was the 9th warmest year on record)

That the global temperature was much warmer in the time when the Vikings lived and grew crops on Greenland (hint: it wasn't. It was a temporary localized warming); and specially, that much more ice melted (hint: it didn't)

That ancient maps show the Antarctic without ice and divided in two sections (this one I want to see)

Cheers

[BenBurch]

70 meter rise? did you mean 70mm. Where do you get those silly estimates from. From the latest info we are cooling. Past times when the Vikings lived and grew crops on Greenland the world temp. was much higher than now so much more ice must have melted. Ancient maps show the ant-Arctic with out ice and with out inundation how else could they have known that it is in two sections,which has only recently been proven with deep radar scans. Chicken Little comes to mind.

The stupid - IT BURNS!!!

What a load of woo.

Especially basing anything on 14th century maps that also show unicorns and dragons...

[macdoc]

Old Bob - the first known dementia victim due to denier Koolaid overdose. :boggled:

[lomiller]

Is that true? I thought the mass of the ice was what kept the land masses down. Is there an example of a land mass that stayed down once the ice was removed?

Hudson’s Bay. During full glaciation, it’s the center of the North American Ice sheet which forces the continental ice sheet down. The ice does keep the land mass down, but the rebound rate is only a few inches per year.

[BenBurch]

Hudson’s Bay. During full glaciation, it’s the center of the North American Ice sheet which forces the continental ice sheet down. The ice does keep the land mass down, but the rebound rate is only a few inches per year.

Hudson Bay was a low spot to start with though, being an astrobleme.

[lomiller]

Hudson Bay was a low spot to start with though, being an astrobleme.


There is the possibility of a large impact crater in the south eastern part of Hudson Bay but my understanding is that this is an ongoing debate.

I don’t think it’s possible to say what the region as a whole would look like if there had been no glaciations. The entire Hudson bay region is in the middle of some of the oldest parts of the North American continental crust, so even if it would have been lower I can’t see how it would ever be below sea level without the weight of the ice on top of it.

[luchog]

Except with massage parlors, streetwalkers, and a plentiful crack supply... Unless its gotten better in the last decade...
Not really, no. If anything, it's been getting worse.

[CapelDodger]

Especially basing anything on 14th century maps that also show unicorns and dragons...

And nary a mention of trolls, let alone astroblemes.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Using my handy slide rule and easy-to-find calculations of the volume of the land-based icecaps, I came up with a 70-metre sea level rise if the Greenland and Antarctic sheets melted. I did not factor in the density of H2O in different states at various temperatures, nor did I include the change in elevation of the land masses currently icebound. I also figured that the time it will take is about 125 years, if the one-metre projected rise in the next twenty is accurate, and if the rate of melting increases exponentially. I did not include other high elevation glacial melting but the volume of glacial non-polar ice is small compared to those two regions.

Apart from the mere inconvenience of adapting to a 70-metre rise in the sea levels, is there any good reason we couldn't accommodate that? It sounds like an astonishing opportunity for capital investment, and the rate is not fast enough to outweigh the returns.

What was your source for the 1 meter sea level rise in 20 years? There was a Scientific American article on the subject a couple of years ago:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-will-global-warming-raise-sea-levels

The reports it cites only project a few meters increase by 2100.

[BenBurch]

And nary a mention of trolls, let alone astroblemes.

The map has something that looks like a troll, in fact!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Piri_reis_world_map_01.jpg

[Old Bob]

Feel free to not spew forth your ignorant ravings here.

Gee Damien didn't know you were the be all and end all, my mistake. If you want to see the above look in the mirror. Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam. The Pacific islands that have rising sea levels is because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator. The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge. The North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers, it's not open now. Yep the sky is falling, keep up the panic, makes you sound smart.

[Megalodon]

Gee Damien didn't know you were the be all and end all, my mistake. If you want to see the above look in the mirror. Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam. The Pacific islands that have rising sea levels is because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator. The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge. The North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers, it's not open now. Yep the sky is falling, keep up the panic, makes you sound smart.

If the Vatican is hiding the maps, how do you know about them?

Again, you wouldn't mind providing some evidence for all those interesting assertions of yours, would you?

Namely:

That the global temperature is dropping (hint: it's not. Of the 10 warmest years on record, 8 were in this decade, plus 98 and 97. 2008 was the 9th warmest year on record)

That the global temperature was much warmer in the time when the Vikings lived and grew crops on Greenland (hint: it wasn't. It was a temporary localized warming); and specially, that much more ice melted (hint: it didn't)

That ancient maps show the Antarctic without ice and divided in two sections (this one I want to see)

That thousands of scientists have refuted anthropogenic global warming (hint: not the ones in relevant fields)

That the Pacific islands have rising sea levels because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator (hint: you're sooo wrong it hurts)

That the North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers, it's not open now (hint: you failed on this one too)

Question: are you misinformed, misinforming or trolling?

[varwoche]

Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam. In your phenomenally fertile imagination.

The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge. I love it! I welcome you to the CTs Concerning Global Warming Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104463) thread to present your evidence (the one thread where a/gw conspiracy theorists dare not go, preferring instead the drive-by approach).

[TrueSceptic]

Gee Damien didn't know you were the be all and end all, my mistake. If you want to see the above look in the mirror. Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam. The Pacific islands that have rising sea levels is because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator. The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge. The North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers, it's not open now. Yep the sky is falling, keep up the panic, makes you sound smart.
This is a joke, isn't it?

Next you'll be telling us about the shape-shifting reptilians who actually run the world. :eek:

[BenBurch]

And what about the Unicorn on that Pier Reis map, eh? Is that being hidden from us by the Vatican too???

:dl:

[macdoc]

Next you'll be telling us about the shape-shifting reptilians you think he's a Scientologist??.....hmmmm might be something in that ;) :dl: love the rol

[BenBurch]

you think he's a Scientologist??.....hmmmm might be something in that ;) :dl: love the rol

No, I think the poor dupes in the Scientology fraud aren't the ones with the Lizard People.

BTW, I hear rumors that major Justice Department heat is coming down on the "Church" of Scientology. Might be a while as they collect evidence, but expect something in a year or two if what I was told is true.

[CapelDodger]

Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam.

None have. Not one. Zip. Nada. It would only take one, after all, and guess what - the "scam" is still going.

There are scientists who have denied it, but nobody serious listens to them any more.

The Pacific islands that have rising sea levels is because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator.

Are you pulling my bell-end, tosh? (That's Brit-speak for "Geddoudahere!")

The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge.

Have they let you see it? I wouldn't trust their word that they've got it.

The North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers ...

Is that why John Cabot didn't come back that last time? Maybe he got to the Pacific and settled in Tahiti (I would have).

... it's not open now.

Not just at the moment, but it is mid-winter. It'll be open in the summer, just as it was the last two summers.

Yep the sky is falling, keep up the panic, makes you sound smart.

Panic never made anybody sound smart - well, not in my experience, anyway. Being smart is the best way to sound smart. Which, frankly, you don't.

(Do you have anything on the North-East Passage? Did the Russians keep it a secret back in the day?)

[CapelDodger]

In your phenomenally fertile imagination.

I love it! I welcome you to the CTs Concerning Global Warming Science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104463) thread to present your evidence (the one thread where a/gw conspiracy theorists dare not go, preferring instead the drive-by approach).

I've taken it there (I'm a sucker for Vatican chicanery.) http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4394909#post4394909

[six7s]

What you put me in mind of is that before modern technology, living by major waterways (large rivers, oceans) was practically a requirement for civilization. As a result most major population centers can be found in such locations.It's also worth noting that the most fertile soils (apart from volcanic deposits, which have their own obvious problems) are on floodplains and river deltas.Perhaps... I have a hunch that there's some rather fertile soil to be found in and around forests, too)

Whatever/however... it occurs to me that one point most 'worth noting' is that, as most high-density human settlements are located in areas prone to flooding and/or volcanic eruptions, we are the heirs to a whole raft ('scuse teh pun) of adaptive skills...

One other point I find 'worth noting' is that we thrive on a varied diet of stuff that grows abundantly in and/or around water

Even if I was to put us humans first and foremost, why should I be worried about the welfare of my greatn-grandchildren?

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps... I have a hunch that there's some rather fertile soil to be found in and around forests, too)

Not so much. A lot of the fertile soil we have used to be temperate forest, but most of that's gone now. Rainforest soil is generally quite poor.

Whatever/however... it occurs to me that one point most 'worth noting' is that, as most high-density human settlements are located in areas prone to flooding and/or volcanic eruptions, we are the heirs to a whole raft ('scuse teh pun) of adaptive skills...

One strategy is to run away and coming back when the dust settles. Which is not an option when the tide comes in to stay.

One other point I find 'worth noting' is that we thrive on a varied diet of stuff that grows abundantly in and/or around water

True, but these days most food is farmed. Limnic environments are excellent for hunter-gatherers, though, so there's a future for the species :).

Even if I was to put us humans first and foremost, why should I be worried about the welfare of my greatn-grandchildren?

Why indeed? I'm not. What has posterity ever done for us?

[truethat]

this might be an exceedingly stupid question but here goes.

Is it possible to slowly remove land beneath the ocean in order to balance the rising sea levels?

[six7s]

Not so much. A lot of the fertile soil we have used to be temperate forest, but most of that's gone now. Rainforest soil is generally quite poor.Relatively speaking, yes... However... if a bunch of hippies can grow food in the sands at Findhorn, I ain't fretting, yet

One strategy is to run away and coming back when the dust settles. Which is not an option when the tide comes in to stay.Another tried-and-tested strategy being to up sticks and shift camp

See:
North America
South America
Europe
Asia
&c.

Or, in short, anywhere that ain't Lucy-land

One other point I find 'worth noting' is that we thrive on a varied diet of stuff that grows abundantly in and/or around waterTrue, but these days most food is farmed.:confused: If there's a relevant point to your statement, I'm afraid its gone straight over my head

Limnic environments are excellent for hunter-gatherers, though, so there's a future for the species :).Is there any serious risk?
Why indeed? I'm not. What has posterity ever done for us?How about sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A)? Or was that our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers' posteriority?

[six7s]

this might be an exceedingly stupid question but here goes.

Is it possible to slowly remove land beneath the ocean in order to balance the rising sea levels?this might be an exceedingly stupid reply but here goes.


Why even be concerned - let alone worried - about it?


USA Today: Answers Archives - Earth's water cycle, humidity (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/archives-humidity.htm)
Q: If all the water that is in the world's ice formation were to melt and all the water that was in the atmosphere should condense and fall on the Earth, would the entire earth be totally under water? Would there be any mountains visible even a small tip of them? If the Earth was covered by what depth would the water be?

A: If all of the water on Earth could somehow go into the oceans, we'd still have plenty of land left, you wouldn't even have to go into high mountains to find dry land.

Let's start with the ice. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that if all of the ice on Earth melted, including all of it in Antarctica, Greenland, and on smaller ice caps and glaciers, sea levels would rise by 80.44 meters, which is 264 feet (rounded off.). The Geological Survey estimates that if all of the water in the atmosphere as vapor could somehow condense at the same time, it would cover the entire Earth with one inch – that's right, one inch – of water. Since oceans cover a lot more area than land, even the water that ran off the land into the ocean wouldn't add even two inches to the total from the melting ice.

Even if all of the water that's now underground could somehow come to the surface, and no water flow back underground, we're still talking about a lot of dry land left. The Geological Survey estimates that the amount of water underground is about 2/7ths as much as that locked up in ice. In other words, it would add about 75 feet to the total sea level rise caused by ice. In other words, any place with an elevation of 350 feet or more would be safely above the ocean, assuming that the ocean temperature stays around the same and there is no thermal expansion. (This is getting further and further from reality, a warmer world would have more water vapor in the air.)

While this much water would flood coastal areas, plenty of dry land would be left.

[CapelDodger]

Relatively speaking, yes... However... if a bunch of hippies can grow food in the sands at Findhorn, I ain't fretting, yet

Hippies may well come through this a lot better than your average townie. I grow fruit and veg myself, but I do have the garden for it. Not everybody does, and they're not having mine.

Another tried-and-tested strategy being to up sticks and shift camp



See:

North America
South America
Europe
Asia
&c.
Or, in short, anywhere that ain't Lucy-land

Been there, found those, filled them up.

:confused: If there's a relevant point to your statement, I'm afraid its gone straight over my head

If we lose a lot of farmland many people will be in trouble, and most farmland is low-lying. We can't all take to fishing and catching frogs.

Is there any serious risk?

There is to people living in deltas. (In truth, the most immediate danger is the state of the oceans, which is bad and getting worse.)

How about sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A)? Or was that our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers' posteriority?

We are their posterity, and we never did anything for them either. They did those things for their own benefit anyway.

[six7s]

Hippies may well come through this a lot better than your average townie.Quite possibly

However, I fail to see the relevance, given that 'your average townies' are a minority population (planet-wise)
Been there, found those, filled them up.Filled 'em up with what?
If we lose a lot of farmland many people will be in trouble, and most farmland is low-lying.Yeah? Are you sure? Even so... most farmland is kinda near where farmers live...

If/when people move, then their farms move, too

We can't all take to fishing and catching frogs.:confused:

So some idiots will die... this is a bad thing?

(In truth, the most immediate danger is the state of the oceans, which is bad and getting worse.)This is one point I can't argue against... other than to say a few gazillion cubes of ice to dilute 'em, a few billion less mammals to pollute 'em and few millennia on spin-cycle and they'll be Persil-clean

We are their posterityCheck my spelling ;)

[macdoc]

However, I fail to see the relevance, given that 'your average townies' are a minority population (planet-wise)Umm more than half of the people on the planet are urban.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTMIGDEV/0,,contentMDK:21405637~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~t heSitePK:2838223,00.html (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTMIGDEV/0,,contentMDK:21405637%7EpagePK:210058%7EpiPK:2100 62%7EtheSitePK:2838223,00.html)

Yeah? Are you sure? Even so... most farmland is kinda near where farmers live...

If/when people move, then their farms move, tooUmm much farmland is alluvial - you tried to farm rocks lately???

Loss of land to sea-level rise:

Some of the world’s most densely populated areas could lose fertile arable land, especially in low-lying delta areas such as those of the Nile, the Mekong and the Ganges-Brahmaputra. A one metre sea-level rise, for example, could result in the loss of 5 800 km2 in the lower Nile delta, affecting 15 per cent of Egypt’s habitable land (Nicholls 1994).

In Bangladesh, a one metre rise could flood almost 30 000 km2, affecting over 13 per cent of the population, while in Vietnam 40 000 km2 could be lost affecting 23 per cent of the population (Table 1) (IPCC 2001b).

Even where land is not flooded, soil quality may decline due to salinization of soils and groundwater sources and increased risk of tidal surges.
http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.asp

[six7s]

Umm more than half of the people on the planet are urban.So? Even with an exceedingly steep bell curve, the sector that represents 'your average townies' is a minority

Umm much farmland is alluvial - you tried to farm rocks lately???Yes. Have you?

In Bangladesh, a one metre rise could flood almost 30 000 km2, affecting over 13 per cent of the population
http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.aspHad a look up stream? There's more than a few hectares up there (http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/10/08/preserved.ice.glacial.dams.helped.prevent.erosion. tibetan.plateau) and, with an increased global temp, some of it might support more than just a few yakherds, no?

[BenBurch]

...
Yes. Have you?
...


Seriously, you are farmer? What type of soil do you have then?

[macdoc]

Average townie = minority :rolleyes: bit of sophistry when your INTENT was clearly otherwise.

Farming rocks.....well that DOES Put your comments in perspective :biggrin:

Move up, No. It's quite warm enough to be farmed if it could be.
There is this small problem of the Himalayas.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov//4955/Bangladesh.A2003026.0450.150x115.jpg
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/4955/Bangladesh.A2003026.0450.1km.jpg

[six7s]

Seriously, you are farmer? What type of soil do you have then?This snippet seems to describe much of the surrounding district that I have called home for approx half of my life:
...rolling hill country founded on deeply weathered fluvio-glacial outwash gravels (Moutere Gravels), with a little limestone and granite in the west. The hills are drained by numerous valleys with flat alluvial floors. There is a small amount of coast containing an estuarine shore and a series of bluffs. The climate is sunny and sheltered, with very warm summers and mild winters...

Source: www.tdc.govt.nz/ (http://www.tdc.govt.nz/index.php?MoutereEcologicalDistrict-TDCBiodiversityOverview)
It's an area renowned - at least recently- for 'the four Fs':
Farming Fishing Fruit [rule 10]-all-else

[six7s]

Average townie = minority :rolleyes: bit of sophistry when your INTENT was clearly otherwise.Confirmation bias, much?

Try scrolling up and see who first used the term

Then come back down and try again

Farming rocks.....well that DOES Put your comments in perspective :biggrin:And I'm the one resorting to sophistry? Hah!

I take you have spent as much time farming as you have thinking Move up, No. It's quite warm enough to be farmed if it could be.
There is this small problem of the Himalayas.A problem that, as Alexander, Genghis and - more recently - Orville and Wilbur would attest, has more than one solution

Your point being? :confused:

[BobK]

For the foreseeable future and no matter how deep the water gets, the US will have plenty of land for growing food. Unless those dunderheads in congress foolishly turn it into fuel.

Only Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey and the District of Columbia have mean elevations of less than 300 feet. Of that group you can count on one finger those that are generally considered farm states.

State elevations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_elevation)

[Damien Evans]

Gee Damien didn't know you were the be all and end all, my mistake. If you want to see the above look in the mirror. Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam. The Pacific islands that have rising sea levels is because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator. The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge. The North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers, it's not open now. Yep the sky is falling, keep up the panic, makes you sound smart.

No.

[macdoc]

- Orville and Wilbur would attest, has more than one solution

What - you are contemplating air lifting a few million Bangladeshis over the Himalayas? :rolleyes:

The low elevation coastal zone -- the continuous area along coastlines that is less than 10 meters above sea level -- represents 2 percent of the world's land area but contains 10 percent of its total population and 13 percent of its urban population, says the report "State of the World's Cities 2008/9: Harmonious Cities" launched by the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT) after analyzing urban inequalities in 28 developing countries.

But at a time when over 50 percent of the world's population lives in urban areas, the report sets out to determine which cities are in danger and which communities might well be drowned out.
There are 3,351 cities in the low elevation coastal zones around the world. Of these cities, 64 percent are in developing regions; Asia alone accounts for more than half of the most vulnerable cities, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (27 percent) and Africa (15 percent). Two-thirds of these cities are in Europe; almost one-fifth of all cities in North America are in low elevation coastal zones, according to the report which UN- HABITAT publishes every two years.
Aimed at policy makers and planners, the new UN report warns that few coastal cities will be spared.
In the developed world, 35 of the 40 largest cities are either coastal or situated along a river bank. In Europe, rivers have played a more important role in determining the growth and importance of a city than the sea; more than half of the 20 largest cities in the region developed along river banks.


and that's the stats at 10 meters ....not 70 :boggled:


Still sea level rise is really minor compared to other factors that would lead up to that.

[six7s]

<aWholeBunchOfCrapSnipped/>

Please, try to think and discuss

I asked you a question

Your point being? :confused:

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2green/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4396100#post4396100)
<aWholeBunchOfCrapSnipped/>



second confirmation.......:garfield:

••

Long before we get anywhere near a 70 meter rise or even a 1 meter rise we'll be facing much greater issues with the ocean....

The group says acidity of ocean surface waters has increased by 30 percent since the 17th century.



“The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable,” according to James Orr, who headed the symposium’s scientific committee. Dr. Orr is a chemical oceanographer at the Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, an affiliate of the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/international_atomic_energy_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org), a United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) body.

According to the declaration, “ocean acidification may render most regions chemically inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

[six7s]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html?_r=1&pagewanted=printThat is a fascinating read

Thank you

[TrueSceptic]

Old Bob - the first known dementia victim due to denier Koolaid overdose. :boggled:
Nah. Tokie beat him to it and he can't have been the first either. :D

[TrueSceptic]

you think he's a Scientologist??.....hmmmm might be something in that ;) :dl: love the rol
I was thinking of David Icke. I don't think he's got any links to Scientology but I could be wrong. From Wiki, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_icke)

At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group referred to as the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, while not denying that these are an anti-semitic hoax. [3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.

See, the best humour is unintentional. :D

[Beerina]

And nary a mention of trolls, let alone astroblemes.

Oh Holy God, I want to know that word!



astrobleme : n An eroded meteorite impact crater. Lit. "star wound", astro + bleme, as in blemish. :: We found her dog wandering around the astrobleme near the burial mound that she went to investigate because it had started humming. ::

[mhaze]

this might be an exceedingly stupid reply but here goes.

Why even be concerned - let alone worried - about it?

USA Today: Answers Archives - Earth's water cycle, humidity (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/archives-humidity.htm)Because Warmers are basically worriers, and the wilder the assertion, the more they go off on it. This thread is a good example. Go back and see if anyone questioned the starting premise: 1 meter in 20 years.

One did, but no one responded, as I recall. Nope, Warmers avoid contrary evidence and facts, in favor of naive and gullible patterns of faith-like beliefs. Basically an apocalyptic belief set.

[Old Bob]

Yep I'm going to have the last laugh, Global Cooling. Here you are, most standing up in snow and still believing Gore. This month Nexus magazine has a big article on the myth of global warming. Here in the central coast Australia the climate has reverted back to a normal hot wet year floods north fires south. We have bad green policy on fire mitigation and every year we have bad fires. This country need to burn in the cool periods to avoid bad hot fires. "But the Smoke, think of the children"

[macdoc]

Having a late night circle denier circle jerk are we?? how cute....:rolleyes:

Nope, Warmers avoid contrary evidence and facts, in favor of naive and gullible patterns of faith-like beliefsPardon my intense laughter about naive reality deniers.....:garfield:

What WAS your category by category refutation of these observed changes???

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

:popcorn1

as for Australia.....bad choice - the changes are well established.....

rain

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=rain&region=aus&season=0112&period=1950

temperature

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=tmax&region=aus&season=0112&period=1950

of course it COULD be a heat island effect :rolleyes:

[BenBurch]

Nah. Tokie beat him to it and he can't have been the first either. :D

I *miss* Tokie.

[In My Spare Time]

According to the map linked on the first page of the thread, a 14 meter rise in sea levels means I get waterfront property on Seattle Island.

[macdoc]

Something very ironic about this.....can't quite put my finger on it.....:rolleyes:

Antarctic bulge could flood Washington DC



19:00 05 February 2009 by David Robson (http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=David+Robson)
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change (http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change) Topic Guide

Rather than spreading out evenly across all the oceans, water from melted Antarctic ice sheets will gather around North America and the Indian Ocean. That's bad news for the US East Coast, which could bear the brunt of one of these oceanic bulges.
Many previous models of the rising sea levels due to climate change (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14634-sea-level-rises-could-far-exceed-ipcc-estimates.html) assumed that water from melted ice sheets and glaciers would simply run into the oceans and fill them uniformly. These models predict a 5-metre rise in sea levels if the West Antarctic ice sheet melts (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16460-even-antarctica-is-now-feeling-the-heat-of-climate-change.html), but fail to acknowledge three important factors.
First, Jerry Mitrovica (http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/alumni-and-friends/images/faculty/mitrovica.jpg/view?searchterm=Jerry%20Mitrovica) and colleagues from the University of Toronto in Canada considered the gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheets on the surrounding water, which pulls it towards the South Pole. As the ice sheet melts, this bulge of water dissipates into surrounding oceans along with the meltwater. So while the sea level near Antarctica will fall, sea levels away from the South Pole will rise.
Once the ice melts, the release of pressure could also cause the Antarctic continent to rise by 100 metres. And as the weight of the ice pressing down on the continental shelf is released, the rock will spring back, displacing seawater that will also spread across the oceans.
Redistributing this mass of water could even change the axis of the Earth's spin. The team estimates that the South Pole will shift by 500 metres towards the west of Antarctica, and the North Pole will shift in the opposite direction. Since the spin of the Earth creates bulges of oceanic water in the regions between the equator and the poles, these bulges will also shift slightly with the changing axis.
Washington awash

The upshot is that the North American continent and the Indian Ocean will experience the greatest changes in sea level – adding 1 or 2 metres to the current estimates. Washington DC sits squarely in this area, meaning it could face a 6.3-metre sea level rise in total. California will also be in the target zone.
"Policy-makers must realise that the effects could be greater or smaller in different areas," says team member Natalya Gomez. The team have so far only considered one ice sheet, so the effects of other ice sheets across the world could also have a similar impact, she says.
However, these models assume that all the West Antarctic sea ice will melt, but Peter Convey (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/staff-profiles/template.php?user=pcon) from the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge points out this may not necessarily be the case (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14724-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-despite-warming.html). "It would be dangerously easy to get people to focus on the 6-metre figure, but it just might not happen like that," he says.
Jonathan Gregory (http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/%7Ejonathan/) from the University of Reading in the UK, who is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, however, thinks the work should be helpful once this has been reliably evaluated.


Journal reference: Science: DOI: 10.1126/science.1166510 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1166510)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16545-antarctic-bulge-could-flood-washington-dc.html

There is ALWAYS a silver lining.....:garfield:

[Hindmost]

Maybe it will drown Wall Street...couldn't hurt.

glenn:boxedin:

[macdoc]

Seems to me S Manhattan is only 3 meters above sea level :D

[CapelDodger]

According to the map linked on the first page of the thread a 14 meter rise in sea levels means I get waterfront property on Seattle Island.

By which time the term "waterfront property" will have lost its cachet. "Raised prospect" or even the simple "hilltop" will be more the thing. "Waterfront property" will rank about equal with "cholera-free so far".

[CapelDodger]

Because Warmers are basically worriers, and the wilder the assertion, the more they go off on it. This thread is a good example. Go back and see if anyone questioned the starting premise: 1 meter in 20 years.

One did, but no one responded, as I recall.

Are you afraid to name names? Go on, we're all amogst friends here. Who was that one?

Nope, Warmers avoid contrary evidence and facts, in favor of naive and gullible patterns of faith-like beliefs. Basically an apocalyptic belief set.

I wouldn't know about "warmers" since I am (even by your definition) not one myself. They sound a sad bunch in principle, but in practice they must be making merry as the confirming evidence comes flooding in. I can understand your frustration, but hey, this cooling phase we're into is really going to piss on their bonfire. In twenty years we'll all be looking back and laughing about them.

Better yet, we could do it in some Florida beachfront property I can put you onto which is an absolute steal at the price.

[CapelDodger]

Oh Holy God, I want to know that word!



astrobleme : n An eroded meteorite impact crater. Lit. "star wound", astro + bleme, as in blemish. :: We found her dog wandering around the astrobleme near the burial mound that she went to investigate because it had started humming. ::

It was new to me as well, and no day that brings a new word is entirely wasted IMO. I've yet to persuade m'dog of that but he has his own priorities, and is fully entitled to them.

[CapelDodger]

Quite possibly

However, I fail to see the relevance, given that 'your average townies' are a minority population (planet-wise)

I don't think so.

Filled 'em up with what?

People.

Yeah? Are you sure? Even so... most farmland is kinda near where farmers live...

If/when people move, then their farms move, too

You can't pack up a farm and move it.

So some idiots will die... this is a bad thing?

I'm not making any value judgements. Stuff happens. My main concern is that it not happen to me or to people I care about - and I don't much care for idiots. Most people are idiots :cool:.

[macdoc]

One of my colleagues brought my attention to the "below sea level" terrain in Antarctica and how ocean water could penetrate beneath and hasten dissolution of the western glacial masses.

That was news for me but I did not have a sense of how much ...now I do :boggled:

Wow got a visual of Antarctic currently above sealevel...- floating away ice indeed
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/RonneFichner.jpg
http://www.physorg.com/news153066381.html

That's almost half the continent is below current sea level.......that could get nasty rather quickly...

for reference Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km) is 50% larger than the continental US.....no small chunk of land area.

[mhaze]

Your statement:

That's almost half the continent is below current sea level.......that could get nasty rather quickly...

Is the reverse of what the scientists actually say in your own link:

"We aren't suggesting that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is imminent," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State University.

How stupid do you think people are?

[CapelDodger]

Your statement:

That's almost half the continent is below current sea level.......that could get nasty rather quickly...

Is the reverse of what the scientists actually say in your own link:

"We aren't suggesting that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is imminent," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State University.

The quote continues :

""But these findings do suggest that if you are planning for sea level rise, you had better plan a little higher."

So they're not writing off the possibility, which would in fact be the reverse of what macdoc posted.

How stupid do you think people are?

I've yet to draw a line under how stupid people can be. Stupid enough to think that other people can't follow links is well within the normal range, in my experience.

[six7s]

How stupid do you think people are?I've yet to draw a line under how stupid people can be. Stupid enough to think that other people can't follow links is well within the normal range, in my experience.Is Lake Woebegone above average, altitude-wise?

[CapelDodger]

Is Lake Woebegone above average, altitude-wise?

Yes and no. (Pick the average out of that, smartarse :).)

[macdoc]

"Quickly" is a relative term and in terms of geologic it could be an eyeblink as the conditions are set ofr cascading collapse with the sea intruding under the glaciers.

Even if that happens regionally massive ice shelves then drift off to melt .....as they have been doing for the past 10 years.

[CORed]

Move to Toronto and you will be saved! Lake Ontario is 75m above sea level. :)

I think you mean Ontario Bay.

[CapelDodger]

I think you mean Ontario Bay.

Since there'll be a whole new set of maps needed anyway, the locals could be a bit more adventurous than that.

Not terribly likely, eh?

[mhaze]

"Quickly" is a relative term and in terms of geologic it could be an eyeblink as the conditions are set ofr cascading collapse with the sea intruding under the glaciers.

Even if that happens regionally massive ice shelves then drift off to melt .....as they have been doing for the past 10 years.

Oh, okay. "Very quickly" means very slowly.

Got it! Thanks!

[CapelDodger]

Is Lake Woebegone above average, altitude-wise?

I still can't remember where it is .... Somewhere with lots of Swedes, as I vaguely recall, so it's near Canada presumably. "Looks like home; let's stop here." Damn, I've got a whole book on it around here somewhere ...

Sounded nice :). Hope it makes it. I'd be stringing the razor-wire right now, and getting the old shield-wall drill going. "Trust in your shield and overlap your fields-of-fire", as the legendary Olaf My-Turf used to say.

[CapelDodger]

One of my colleagues brought my attention to the "below sea level" terrain in Antarctica and how ocean water could penetrate beneath and hasten dissolution of the western glacial masses.

That was news for me but I did not have a sense of how much ...now I do :boggled:

Wow got a visual of Antarctic currently above sealevel...- floating away ice indeed
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/RonneFichner.jpg
http://www.physorg.com/news153066381.html

That's almost half the continent is below current sea level.......that could get nasty rather quickly...

for reference Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km) is 50% larger than the continental US.....no small chunk of land area.

On the human scale it's a long time before all of that goes, by which time we'll be over, gone, history or we'll probably be able to stabilise matters. Don't forget that in a century we are going to so all over climate and ice-dynamics that the whole frickin' system will be our bitch. Happy are the young and yet-to-be glaciologists of today for they shall see wonders and observe them directly! Who saw that coming?

Time was that the primary requisite of a glaciologist was patience. Not any more. It's an exciting field, and not just for Canadians.

On the more human term it's the ocean-floor profile off West Antarctica that could spring some surprises. Where it slopes down (going towards the interior) under the ice-contact layer any intruding ocean is going to push in under pressure. Where it rises the process will slow dramatically. It seems to me, anyway, from a simple mental model.

That could still leave a lot of previously grounded ice floating, which brings me to the thrust of the article : gravitational forces will draw it inexorably away from the pole. This is the reverse action of the water that is currently drawn there by an anchored mass. Which floating ice isn't so much. It won't be entirely free; it will still be held by tensile forces to grounded ice.

The tensile strength of ice is not great, nor is it very elastic. When it fails it fractures. Ergo the process will be sporadic, not continuous. Oops.

[CapelDodger]

From Quaternary Science Reviews via ScienceDaily

Dramatic Rise In Sea Level And Its Broad Ramifications Uncovered
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205314.htm

Scientists have found proof in Bermuda that the planet’s sea level was once more than 21 meters (70 feet) higher about 400,000 years ago than it is now.


Storrs Olson, research zoologist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, and geologist Paul Hearty of the Bald Head Island Conservancy discovered sedimentary and fossil evidence in the walls of a limestone quarry in Bermuda that documents a rise in sea level during an interglacial period of the Middle Pleistocene in excess of 21 meters above its current level.

Determining the timing and extent of this global rise in sea level is not only important for interpreting the influence that it may have had on biogeographical patterns and extinctions of organisms on islands and low-lying continental coastal areas, it is also critical for anticipating the possible effects of future climate change. This particular interglacial period is considered by some scientists to be a suitable comparison to our current interglacial period. With future carbon dioxide levels possibly rising higher than any time in the past million years, it is important to consider the potential effects on polar ice sheets.

Biogeographers, conservationists and many others in the biological sciences must take these findings into consideration, Olson urged. “These findings are incredibly important and have major relevance because of their potential predictive value since this sea-level rise took place during the interglacial period most similar to the present one now in progress. It thus becomes essential that the full extent and duration of this event be more widely recognized and acknowledged.”

(My emphasis)

I expect this to get some play. This happened without human intervention (barely a token presence, even).

Discuss :).

[Old Bob]

A lot of posts talk of ancient sea levels being higher (No man made warming then) As I said earlier the globe changes shape over time altering the dia. at the equator and that alters sea levels. Perhaps it's not the total sea level reason change and yes more melt more water. Another question, many of the deep sea trenches are far more dramatic than the dry land trenches even the rift valley is no where as deep as some under sea trenches. What I'm trying to say does the weight of the water push the sea bed down and modify the sea level rises.

[Akhenaten]

A lot of posts talk of ancient sea levels being higher (No man made warming then)

Dinosaur farts.


As I said earlier the globe changes shape over time altering the dia. at the equator and that alters sea levels.

The fact that you said something earlier can only serve to cast doubt on its veracity. Perhaps a reference or two would help that.


Perhaps it's not the total sea level reason change and yes more melt more water.

Perhaps you should post in English.


Another question,

Perhaps you should ask the first question first.


many of the deep sea trenches are far more dramatic than the dry land trenches even the rift valley is no where as deep as some under sea trenches. What I'm trying to say does the weight of the water push the sea bed down and modify the sea level rises.

No. In ancient times, icebergs didn't float because the Earth was a dodecahedron and the undersea trenches were carved out by massive underwater glaciers.

[mhaze]

Dinosaur farts......icebergs didn't float because the Earth was a dodecahedron and the undersea trenches were carved out by massive underwater glaciers.

Now, now. A bit tired and cranky? Brain played out, leading to Argument from Ridicule? You can go to bed now. Would you like some warm milk?

Recapping this thread, it starts with a totally lame and unsupported wild assertion of a 70 meter sea level rise. But Warmers are basically worriers, and the wilder the assertion, the more they go off on it. This thread is a good example. Go back and see if anyone questioned the starting premise: 1 meter in 20 years.

Much later Capel comes in with an attempt to salvage some small bit of "But it's Alarmingly Worse" with an article about non uniform gravitational influences, from a totally different direction.

No, it isn't Alarmingly Worse, and no, big chunks of civilization are not going underwater, and no, Bangladesh isn't going to flood, it is gaining land.

[six7s]

Bangladesh isn't going to flood, it is gaining land.Really? Please, do explain how you know (or why you believe) this

[mhaze]

Really? Please, do explain how you know (or why you believe) thisIt is a quantitative reality. (http://www.google.com/search?q=bangladesh+gaining+land&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

[dann]

As to adaptation, tell that to the Dutch :). A few metres and they're gone, and it's much the same for Denmark.

What do you mean? We seem to be doing fine (http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=54.1496,8.8770&m=14)! Copenhagen has lost its airport and the island of Amager, and we appear to have lost the connection with the continent and turned into an archipelago, but it isn't something a couple of new bridges couldn't mend. And my weekend cottage has moved a little closer to the beach.

[six7s]

It is a quantitative reality. (http://www.google.com/search?q=bangladesh+gaining+land&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)Yeah? So, does this particular brand of 'quantitative reality'make these kids property barons?
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ftOU3QefLQjBmM:http://naylandprimary.school.nz/UserFiles/Image/IMG_1427.JPG (http://www.naylandprimary.school.nz/middle_syndicate.htm)
:confused:

[Pipirr]

What do you mean? We seem to be doing fine (http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=54.1496,8.8770&m=14)! Copenhagen has lost its airport and the island of Amager, and we appear to have lost the connection with the continent and turned into an archipelago, but it isn't something a couple of new bridges couldn't mend. And my weekend cottage has moved a little closer to the beach.

And of course the Carlsberg brewery is on top of a hill... in Frederiksberg. That's all you need, right there :D

[mhaze]

Yeah? So, does this particular brand of 'quantitative reality'make these kids property barons?
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ftOU3QefLQjBmM:http://naylandprimary.school.nz/UserFiles/Image/IMG_1427.JPG (http://www.naylandprimary.school.nz/middle_syndicate.htm)

:confused:

Do you have a scheme to create a static and unchanging landmass? Since 1800 over 1M in Bangladesh have died from drowning. Bangladesh gaining land is good.

[CapelDodger]

Much later Capel comes in with an attempt to salvage some small bit of "But it's Alarmingly Worse" with an article about non uniform gravitational influences, from a totally different direction.

You're gibbering again. Alert your programmers.

There's only one important direction from Antarctica and that's North.

No, it isn't Alarmingly Worse, and no, big chunks of civilization are not going underwater, and no, Bangladesh isn't going to flood, it is gaining land.

I have a source for beach-front Bangladeshi property at a price that's an absolute steal (mostly because it's yet to emerge, but in a few years you can cash in big-time).

[CapelDodger]

What do you mean? We seem to be doing fine (http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=54.1496,8.8770&m=14)! Copenhagen has lost its airport and the island of Amager, and we appear to have lost the connection with the continent and turned into an archipelago, but it isn't something a couple of new bridges couldn't mend. And my weekend cottage has moved a little closer to the beach.

I'm glad to hear you guys are staying put. On this side of the North Sea we have unhappy memories of Danish migration, and I have family in East Anglia, right in the firing-line. Fortunately they're on what counts as the high part of Suffolk.

[CapelDodger]

And of course the Carlsberg brewery is on top of a hill... in Frederiksberg. That's all you need, right there :D

Probably.

http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=89102