Jump to content

Sea water levels


GUMPY

Featured Posts

20 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

 

The ice in question is either floating , or on land (in Antartica) The stuff on land flows into the sea when it melts and adds directly to ocean volume. The stuff floating partially above the water, by exactly the ratio by which is shrinks on melting. Clever bloke that Archimedes.

 

Nice of you to worry about the people left dealing with this after you've gone.

 

Apparently it's all a scam cooked up by climate scientists to get funding anyway, so that's fine ?

 

MP.

 

Apparently you missed the last line. 

However I do find the somewhat absurd claims made for climate change laughable.

Just how much energy is required to raise sea temperatures by 1 degree centigrade to a depth of 3500 m, required for this 1 m sea level rise , 

We really do not know enough about our planet and how it works to make claims about what might happen a hundred years from now. The so called greenhouse gases account for less than 1% of the total atmosphere.

Not all scientists agree with the reasons put forward for climate change. 

The human race has since the start of the industrial age increased the output of pollution into the atmosphere, this will I assume have an effect but how much and given that we have started to address this will it reverse in the future, who knows.

 

Generally the news is bad news it is rare that good news makes it either into our newspapers or onto TV, and sensational news is the best of all, accuracy not important.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I’m not sure how the calculation goes, but a cube with 3500m edges has a volume of 42.875 billion cubic metres. An increase of 0.0003% is 128,625 cubic metres. Spread over an area of a 3500m square, or 12.25 million square metres, this would have a depth of about a centimetre.

 

Happy to be proved wrong....... if I am :) 

no need to create a cube.  just a column of 1sq.m. will do.   My calculations come to 10cm.

 

 

oh, and melting ice (in some places more than 1000m thick) will have an enormous contribution.

1 hour ago, artleknock said:

Is this a good reason why I should pay thousands of pounds to reduce production of greenhouse gasses when the rest of the world ( that create 98% of the total gasses produced) should go their own merry way?

so you alone are responsible for 2% of the world's greenhouse gases?   if you cease then we are well on the way to achieving the gubbinment's target.

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So, what's the problem ?

For 100's of years the Dutch have managed to maintain land below sea level and recovered from the sea. Surely with modern technology we can at least do the same.

it's not a problem for technologically advanced and relatively rich countries, but your suggestion won't wash with the inhabitants of the Maldives or Bangladesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KenK said:

Apparently you missed the last line. 

However I do find the somewhat absurd claims made for climate change laughable.

Just how much energy is required to raise sea temperatures by 1 degree centigrade to a depth of 3500 m, required for this 1 m sea level rise , 

We really do not know enough about our planet and how it works to make claims about what might happen a hundred years from now. The so called greenhouse gases account for less than 1% of the total atmosphere.

Not all scientists agree with the reasons put forward for climate change. 

The human race has since the start of the industrial age increased the output of pollution into the atmosphere, this will I assume have an effect but how much and given that we have started to address this will it reverse in the future, who knows.

 

Generally the news is bad news it is rare that good news makes it either into our newspapers or onto TV, and sensational news is the best of all, accuracy not important.

 

Ken

Yeah experts who can trust em

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, KenK said:

Apparently you missed the last line. 

However I do find the somewhat absurd claims made for climate change laughable.

Just how much energy is required to raise sea temperatures by 1 degree centigrade to a depth of 3500 m, required for this 1 m sea level rise , 

Well, the specific heat capacity of water is know to a fair degree of accuracy, as is the volume of the Oceans, so calculating a rough value is just multiplication. Can you drive Google and a calculator, or would you like me to do it for you?

18 minutes ago, KenK said:

We really do not know enough about our planet and how it works to make claims about what might happen a hundred years from now. The so called greenhouse gases account for less than 1% of the total atmosphere.

Not all scientists agree with the reasons put forward for climate change. 

That's OK then. What a relief! I'd got as far as understanding the mechanism of heat trapping from the differential absorption and emission or different wavelengths of light and how adding certain substances to the atmosphere increases that effect and increases the net energy flux to  the earth from sunlight. But then working out how that actually affects climate seems to be very difficult, because there are so many simultaneous changes and feedback effects. Lots of people have worked hard on that, but the boundaries of certainty still seem to be worryingly wide. I'm reassured that you've considered this and concluded that there's nothing to worry about.

 

Just one question. What's the total effect of the current greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? That's easy to determine: we know the mean earth temperature to high confidence from satellite data. We also know the mean albedo from the same source. Solar radiation flux is easy to measure. It's easy to use solar radiation, the albedo and simple black-body physics to calculate what the temperature would be without an atmosphere. The difference gives you the total magnitude of the greenhouse effect. That last number I read was about 35 Celsius. That's how much warmer the earth is because of the total greenhouse effect now. Given that, "The extra CO2 is a small fraction of the total" doesn't look so reassuring. Increase greenhouse effect by 3% and you lift temperatures by one degree, which is plenty enough to notice.

18 minutes ago, KenK said:

The human race has since the start of the industrial age increased the output of pollution into the atmosphere, this will I assume have an effect but how much and given that we have started to address this will it reverse in the future, who knows.

Aren't you at least, erm, curious to know if your species is likely to drive itself to extinction with the next few millenia?

 

MP.

 

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the claims are not laughable - but as always represent a spectrum of possibilities, the most extreme of which are picked up by the media and run with as if it was a fait accompli.  When I started out in my meteorological career many many years ago global warming (that's what it was called in those days) seemed incompressibly unrealistic and yet here we are, with all the sensor data indicating we are indeed towards the high end of those early projections.

 

Of course, not all ‘scientists’ agree and it would be bad science if they did.  There is always a place in science to question and challenge.  That said the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that climate change is a real and man-made affect.  Now before anybody jumps up and says ‘yes – but climate change has always been here’, yes you are correct, but all the evidence suggests that the rate of change has NEVER been so rapid as we are currently experiencing.  There is no precedent on which we can base projections and therefore we have no idea ultimately what the consequence of our actions will be.  We might end up with a better, more balanced ecosystem but on the other hand we might be heading down the path of the next great extinction.  Is it really worth the risk?  Should we take the arrogant approach that technology will come to the rescue sooner or later?  Sure it might but at what cost?  As long as the world economies are based on capitalism (state or private) and associated trade, there is little realistic expectation that the vast investment likely to be required would ever be palatable to the political elite.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MHS said:

The highly, highly intelligent and highly respected leader of the western word, Mr Donald Trump doesn’t believe in climate change. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46351940

 

Obviously he must be right. 

I heard a rumour that he read a book. I checked it out with Snopes: no foundation in truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WotEver said:

I heard a rumour that he read a book. I checked it out with Snopes: no foundation in truth. 

Now that can’t be right. Highly, highly intellegent people surely read lots of books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Excellent link, thanks for finding it.

 

It seems that humanity divides itself into two camps:

(1) Accept the huge consensus of expert opinion, and each work out how to do their bit;

(2) Reject expert opinion because they don't want it to be true.

11 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

>>Just one question. What's the total effect of the current greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? That's easy to determine: we know the mean earth temperature to high confidence from satellite data. We also know the mean albedo from the same source. Solar radiation flux is easy to measure. It's easy to use solar radiation, the albedo and simple black-body physics to calculate what the temperature would be without an atmosphere. The difference gives you the total magnitude of the greenhouse effect. That last number I read was about 35 Celsius. That's how much warmer the earth is because of the total greenhouse effect now. Given that, "The extra CO2 is a small fraction of the total" doesn't look so reassuring. Increase greenhouse effect by 3% and you lift temperatures by one degree, which is plenty enough to notice.<<

 

 

Don't confuse him with facts, whatever you do. It doesn't work for religious adherents, so why would it work for climate change deniers?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I’m not sure how the calculation goes, but a cube with 3500m edges has a volume of 42.875 billion cubic metres. An increase of 0.0003% is 128,625 cubic metres. Spread over an area of a 3500m square, or 12.25 million square metres, this would have a depth of about a centimetre.

 

Happy to be proved wrong....... if I am :) 

All these calcs (right or wrong) are assuming the whole ocean warms up. There is no way the bottom of the ocean is going to be significantly affected by a few degrees increase at the top. It will still be bloomin' cold down at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it could rise by 5 degrees or so in 50 years time. That's pretty bad but of course then it stops doesn't it? Or does it just keep on accelerating until there are just a few scorpions wandering around in the dust. I have grandchildren just a few months old. Its a bit sobering to think that they could actually see the end of meaningful life on Earth. ( I was going to write the beginning of the end of meaningful life on Earth but I guess that's us)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bee said:

So it could rise by 5 degrees or so in 50 years time. That's pretty bad but of course then it stops doesn't it?

Read that Royal Society link I posted. The short answer is that no, it won’t stop increasing... probably. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man made Global warming is no longer debatable, it is no longer Science. It is now a religion, you are a believer or a heratic.

The world temperature changes, stasis is not an option. Geologicaly, it was not that long ago that London was under a mile of ice (OK, I know London was not built yet) and within recorded history the Romans were planting vines in Northumberland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What interests me is, given that we all (mostly) accept that climate change triggered by our activities is proven - why are so many great minds still spending so much time proving it over and over and producing report after report saying we're doomed ?  Wouldn't it be better if those great minds put some effort into solutions? There are just too many people, using too many resources, burning too much carbon, to reduce the damage by cutting back .. every step we might take in the rich west to reduce the damage is outweighed several times by increases in the developing world (and we can hardly criticise them considering our pampered lifestyles).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, artleknock said:

Man made Global warming is no longer debatable, it is no longer Science. It is now a religion, you are a believer or a heretic.

The world temperature changes, stasis is not an option. Geologically, it was not that long ago that London was under a mile of ice (OK, I know London was not built yet) and within recorded history the Romans were planting vines in Northumberland.

ROFL!!

 

No, but the issue is no longer debatable exactly because the science is overwhelming. It is only the deniers who are treating it like a religion - for the sane and rational majority of us, it is just as real as evolution. Anthropogenic climate change is a very different matter from the long-term climate fluctuations which even themselves out over millennia. Just look at the way the global climate has changed since the Industrial Revolution and you will see how the rate of change is suddenly vastly greater.

 

The idiots spouting denials, such as the POTUS, are simply ignorant about the science, and the media repeat it just to sell papers and advertising space.

 

This is no longer a question of balance -- it is a matter of scientific truth versus wishful thinking.

9 minutes ago, KevMc said:

why are so many great minds still spending so much time proving it over and over and producing report after report saying we're doomed ?  Wouldn't it be better if those great minds put some effort into solutions?

 

The more we (they) know about it, the more likely it is that solutions will be found, surely?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KevMc said:

  Wouldn't it be better if those great minds put some effort into solutions? 

I would also venture to suggest that the great minds, on the whole, are funded by the political establishments who don't have the desire to turn those minds towards solving the problem for fear of what it would cost them, both financially and politically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

The more we (they) know about it, the more likely it is that solutions will be found, surely?

But they keep telling us the solution is simple ...stop burning carbon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JJPHG said:

I would also venture to suggest that the great minds, on the whole, are funded by the political establishments who don't have the desire to turn those minds towards solving the problem for fear of what it would cost them, both financially and politically

 

One person's problem is another person's business opportunity, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JJPHG said:

I would also venture to suggest that the great minds, on the whole, are funded by the political establishments who don't have the desire to turn those minds towards solving the problem for fear of what it would cost them, both financially and politically

:o surely not :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KevMc said:

But they keep telling us the solution is simple ...stop burning carbon!

 

The solution is, indeed, that simple,  but implementing it is the tricky part. 

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

The short answer is that no, it won’t stop increasing... probably. 

"Probably" clinches it for me - it's not something I would ever bet against!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a really interesting documentary called 'Chasing Ice' it's about a group of scientists and cameraman and how they went about setting up cameras to record and document the changes in the ice flows and glaciers over a 3 to 10 year period - it's worth watching for the sheer beauty and human determination and ingenuity - but it is also very revealing and in formative. 

 

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/movie/chasing-ice/id620495733

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chasing-Ice-DVD-James-Balog/dp/B00AMZY72U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1543321232&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=chasing+ice

 

 

Edited by Tumshie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

  how does 58m rise in sea level sound?    that's the potential if global warming goes unchecked.

 

   http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/estimating-glacier-contribution-to-sea-level-rise/

Well - to be honest it doesn't sound appealing.

We are 29 foot above sea-level, so the boat would be 'handy' to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

  how does 58m rise in sea level sound?    that's the potential if global warming goes unchecked.

 

   http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/estimating-glacier-contribution-to-sea-level-rise/

Ideal.

 

We could get the boat to the end of the garden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.