How high are the oceans supposed to rise after global warming? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How high are the oceans supposed to rise after global warming? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 3/9/2006 7:47:11 AM EDT

[#1]

Someone on TV said the other day that if the Antarctic ice cap melted entirely, it would raise ocean levels 200 feet, but no one's suggesting that's even a possibility. The chicken littles were saying about 20 feet.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:03:43 AM EDT

[#2]

I saw a show today on the NASA channel which stated that, according to their observations between 2002 and 2005, the Antarctic ice cap has already shown a SIGNIFICANT reduction in mass during that time (they didn't say exactly how much).

I recall reading a statistic somewhere that said that if all the ice in Antarctica were to melt, that alone would raise the ocean levels to the point where the Statue of Liberty would have the water level at her nose. I don't know how far above sea level that would be, but I can see that Japan would be truly fucked if that were to happen.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:12:11 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Answer: They won't rise. The icecaps displace the water. When that happens the water will take the place of the icecaps.

only on the nothern icecap - it's the one floating in the ocean.

the ice covering antarctica is on land, so if it melted (extremely unlikely, because temps would ahve to go up about 70 degrees down there) then it would end up adding to the overall water levels.

It's not entirely true about floating ice either. While just melting floating ice wouldn't raidse sea levels, an overall rise in ocean temperatures would. The density of water varies with temperature, in general, when liquid water gets warmer, it expands. While the amount of expansion when you raise the temperature of water a degree or two may seem miniscule, when you consider that for the most part you're dealing with a column of water a couple miles high, even a small overall increase in ocean temperatures could create sgnificant problems for low-lying coastal areas.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:19:03 AM EDT

[#4]

Jeez, what's wrong with you people? The answer is 42.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:21:10 AM EDT

[#5]

Just pick a number. Your randomly selected number is as likely to be correct as that of the current "scientists" who bloviate on this topic.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:23:02 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Answer: They won't rise. The icecaps displace the water. When that happens the water will take the place of the icecaps.

only on the nothern icecap - it's the one floating in the ocean.

the ice covering antarctica is on land, so if it melted (extremely unlikely, because temps would ahve to go up about 70 degrees down there) then it would end up adding to the overall water levels.

It's not entirely true about floating ice either. While just melting floating ice wouldn't raidse sea levels, an overall rise in ocean temperatures would. The density of water varies with temperature, in general, when liquid water gets warmer, it expands. While the amount of expansion when you raise the temperature of water a degree or two may seem miniscule, when you consider that for the most part you're dealing with a column of water a couple miles high, even a small overall increase in ocean temperatures could create sgnificant problems for low-lying coastal areas.

That is true assuming a thin shell of ice melting on miles deep columns of water would cause a significant a rise through the column.. it will not. It would take far more than that to cause that kind of expansion.

Again Ocean level rise and fall… look at some of the sea side costal fortification built in Europe during the Middle Ages that were on the water when they were built and are now high and dry. Areas that were coastal ports 500 years ago are now miles inland on rivers. The sea levels were probably 15 feet higher as little as 1000 years ago… it is a natural cycle.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:23:44 AM EDT

[#7]

I watched March of the Penguins. Nice movie. Anyway, the coastline was always changing. When it was warm, the penguins had less distance to travel to get food from the water. When it was cold, the surface froze over and the penguins had a longer walk to get to food.
If waters are constantly freezing over and melting, I don't think the ice caps can completely go away.

Anyway, I think what is more important is your current health. You need to lay off the meat lover's pizza and Buffalo wings or you are going to die before total ice meltdown occurs.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:24:58 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I saw a show today on the NASA channel which stated that, according to their observations between 2002 and 2005, the Antarctic ice cap has already shown a SIGNIFICANT reduction in mass during that time (they didn't say exactly how much).

I recall reading a statistic somewhere that said that if all the ice in Antarctica were to melt, that alone would raise the ocean levels to the point where the Statue of Liberty would have the water level at her nose. I don't know how far above sea level that would be, but I can see that Japan would be truly fucked if that were to happen.

The ice the Antarctic has lost in recent years is sea ice. It's already floating, so having it break off and float somewhere else and melt isn't going to make any difference. The average Antarctic surface temperature never gets above freezing. There's just no way Antarctic glacial ice is going to melt away.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:34:46 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Answer: They won't rise. The icecaps displace the water. When that happens the water will take the place of the icecaps.

only on the nothern icecap - it's the one floating in the ocean.

the ice covering antarctica is on land, so if it melted (extremely unlikely, because temps would ahve to go up about 70 degrees down there) then it would end up adding to the overall water levels.

It's not entirely true about floating ice either. While just melting floating ice wouldn't raidse sea levels, an overall rise in ocean temperatures would. The density of water varies with temperature, in general, when liquid water gets warmer, it expands. While the amount of expansion when you raise the temperature of water a degree or two may seem miniscule, when you consider that for the most part you're dealing with a column of water a couple miles high, even a small overall increase in ocean temperatures could create sgnificant problems for low-lying coastal areas.

That is true assuming a thin shell of ice melting on miles deep columns of water would cause a significant a rise through the column.. it will not. It would take far more than that to cause that kind of expansion.

Again Ocean level rise and fall… look at some of the sea side costal fortification built in Europe during the Middle Ages that were on the water when they were built and are now high and dry. Areas that were coastal ports 500 years ago are now miles inland on rivers. The sea levels were probably 15 feet higher as little as 1000 years ago… it is a natural cycle.

It's not really assuming melting ice has anything to do with it. It's also not assuming that CO2 emissions or cow farts have anything to do with golbal temperatures. It's just assuming that a rise in temperature that causes ice to melt at the poles would also cause a rise in overall ocean temperatures, and that the laws of physics apply in the event ocean temperatures rise.

And whether it's a natural cycle or not, if sea levels were to rise 15 feet, I'd be living on the beach and places like Galveston or Miami would start looking like Venice.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:41:14 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
It's not really assuming melting ice has anything to do with it. It's also not assuming that CO2 emissions or cow farts have anything to do with golbal temperatures. It's just assuming that a rise in temperature that causes ice to melt at the poles would also cause a rise in overall ocean temperatures, and that the laws of physics apply in the event ocean temperatures rise.

And whether it's a natural cycle or not, if sea levels were to rise 15 feet, places like Galveston or Miami would start looking like Venice.

Sure they will look like Venice somewhere in the distant future long after we are dead … get used to that idea. If temperatures are really rising that significantly it is not because cows or humans are causing it, nor can they change the outcome.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:41:51 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the State of Fear by Michael Crichton and you won't worry about global warming for ever. You can also check out his website and read his speeches.

That hack has never addressed the thread of mutant zombies, so I really don't care what he thinks!!!

Yes he did… dinosaurs eat zombies.

What if the zombies bite the dinosaurs?

Holy shit! Zombie dinosaurs!

What's the best round for zombie dinosaurs?

Holy Crap!!

There's gonna be a reappearance of dinosaurs?? Man, this getting bad.

I thought if you drove an SUV it will be a worse sea rise for those who own them...makes about as much sense as the other moonbat thesis'.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:44:25 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the State of Fear by Michael Crichton and you won't worry about global warming for ever. You can also check out his website and read his speeches.

That hack has never addressed the thread of mutant zombies, so I really don't care what he thinks!!!

Yes he did… dinosaurs eat zombies.

What if the zombies bite the dinosaurs?

Holy shit! Zombie dinosaurs!

What's the best round for zombie dinosaurs?

Holy Crap!!

There's gonna be a reappearance of dinosaurs?? Man, this getting bad.

I thought if you drove an SUV it will be a worse sea rise for those who own them...makes about as much sense as the other moonbat thesis'.

If you own a SUV you can run over the zombies and zombie dinosaurs thereby creating the potential for zombie oil fields... life or in this case unlife is a cycle.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:44:29 AM EDT

[#13]

Do you have any plans on building an Ark?

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:46:57 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Do you have any plans on building an Ark?

Don’t need one all you need is a jon boat… and a 10/22 and a 38.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:47:41 AM EDT

[#15]

It does not matter for the purposes of you bunker placement. You will spend years researching locations, climates, food availability, elevations, population density. Then spend a couple years building and stocking your bunker (in total secrecy, mind you).

Then the trigger point to catastrophic global warming will be reached, the oceans will rise 287 feet in a matter of days, and you will run to your bunker, cackling with delight at your cunning foresight.

Thats when the asteroid slams right into your location and reduces you and your bunker into quarks.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:48:14 AM EDT

[#16]

600 miles....in a day.

Hey, it happened in "the day after tommorow"

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:48:47 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not really assuming melting ice has anything to do with it. It's also not assuming that CO2 emissions or cow farts have anything to do with golbal temperatures. It's just assuming that a rise in temperature that causes ice to melt at the poles would also cause a rise in overall ocean temperatures, and that the laws of physics apply in the event ocean temperatures rise.

And whether it's a natural cycle or not, if sea levels were to rise 15 feet, places like Galveston or Miami would start looking like Venice.

Sure they will look like Venice somewhere in the distant future long after we are dead … get used to that idea. If temperatures are really rising that significantly it is not because cows or humans are causing it, nor can they change the outcome.

We don't seem to disagree about anything. Why are we arguing?

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:50:11 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Jeez, what's wrong with you people? The answer is 42.

That's funny. I thought it was 87

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:55:13 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not really assuming melting ice has anything to do with it. It's also not assuming that CO2 emissions or cow farts have anything to do with golbal temperatures. It's just assuming that a rise in temperature that causes ice to melt at the poles would also cause a rise in overall ocean temperatures, and that the laws of physics apply in the event ocean temperatures rise.

And whether it's a natural cycle or not, if sea levels were to rise 15 feet, places like Galveston or Miami would start looking like Venice.

Sure they will look like Venice somewhere in the distant future long after we are dead … get used to that idea. If temperatures are really rising that significantly it is not because cows or humans are causing it, nor can they change the outcome.

We don't seem to disagree about anything. Why are we arguing?

I am not arguing with you I took it from the cow comment we agreed.

Posted: 3/9/2006 8:58:09 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
It does not matter for the purposes of you bunker placement. You will spend years researching locations, climates, food availability, elevations, population density. Then spend a couple years building and stocking your bunker (in total secrecy, mind you).

Then the trigger point to catastrophic global warming will be reached, the oceans will rise 287 feet in a matter of days, and you will run to your bunker, cackling with delight at your cunning foresight.

Thats when the asteroid slams right into your location and reduces you and your bunker into quarks.

That's why I'm doing two bunkers in two different parts of the country.