DC Tom Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Thank you. And I knew that would come from you. Howerver that would only be if all the ice melted. Reread the math. A 20-foot rise in sea level is only 10% of the ice melting...assuming you accept the estimates of the Antarctic ice sheet being about 2km average thickness (and some estimates run as thick as 5km). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Surface area of the oceans is 361,132,000,000 square meters. 20 feet is about six meters. that's 2.1 trillion cubic meters of water. Antarctica is 14 billion square meters in area...14 billion into 2.1 trillion is about 150 meters thickness of water over Antarctica needed to raise the oceans 20 feet. Multiply by 1.1 for the density of ice...and if Antarctica's ice sheet has an average thickness of more than 165 meters and melts completely, the oceans rise 20 feet. The lowest estimates I can find for the thickness of Antarctica's ice are an order of magnitude higher - about 2000 meters thick. So yeah, apparently there's more than enough ice. Thanks for the data... That is what I was elluding to. Just goes to show you that America is really filled with way too many of these lame brains that argue the oceans would not rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Thanks for the data... That is what I was elluding to. Just goes to show you that America is really filled with way too many of these lame brains that argue the oceans would not rise. I don't think it's so much whether or not the oceans will rise. It's more of an arguement on how much or even if mankind has contributed to the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I don't think it's so much whether or not the oceans will rise. It's more of an arguement on how much or even if mankind has contributed to the change or if we can in fact do anything to really effect change. fixed it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 fixed it for you Buy a Prius, plant a tree........peace, love, waterbeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It's the new religion....idiotic causes designed to control the ignorant masses. That was my immediate reaction. He was parroting the old "God vs. Atheism" gambit argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 If I may point out a fairly glaring flaw in many posters continual posts on this subject. It's been stated by numerous people that the earth has cooled and warmed multiple times on its own and without human intervention; therefore, why would we assume humans are effecting the global climate now? It has been suggested that the climate change we may, or may not, be observing is just a natural fluctuation in the earth's climate. However, these assertions are neglecting one of the primary observations of global climate change... the rate of the change. Yes, the earth's climate has warmed and cooled in the past. However, these previous cycles are measured in 10's of thousands of years. The changes currently being measured are being measured in 100's of years. Hence, the rate of change is considerably increased over what could be considered a "natural" cycle. It's this unnatural rate of climate change that leads many to conclude human involvement and causes problems for species throughout the world. Most animal and plant species are not equipped to evolve as quickly as the observed climate change. Hence, mass extinction and a world much different from the current one is expected. Furthermore, it has been suggested that we're just being narcissistic to think that humans can do anything as grand as affect the earth's climate. To that I would say, don't underestimate the power of 6.someodd billion people. If we have enough nuclear weaponry to obliterate the planet; surely we can do just enough to heat things up a little bit. Not necessarily saying we are, just saying certainly it's possible for humans to have some effect on the earth. Ever see how much damage 1 grasshopper can do to a field? Not much, I agree. Put 6 billion in that same field and watch it disappear. There's power in numbers. Fundamentally, the video's logic is flawed because it assumes that the effects of global warming are NOT inevitable, and it assumes that human activity both to create global warming and to stop global warming will ALWAYS have an effect. ... Sorry, but I stopped reading there (well not really, but I should have, if not for my curiosity an/or boredom with the television right now). I'm fairly certain he stated nearly the opposite relatively early in his diatribe.. that you don't have to assume that humans are effecting the global climate and that even if we spend lots of money and that spent money only results in minimal effect then what are we out, but alot of money and a slightly better world than one in which we did nothing. He put a smiley face in that box, but he said we'd have a very different world or something to that effect. I'm guessing he just likes to spend money; hence, the smiley face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 One volcanic eruption like Pinatubo puts out more "pollutants" than man does in years. Relating to the "human caused" ozone hole, Pinatubo put out more chlorine into the atmosphere than man has EVER done. CO2 is now a "greenhouse gas". Lets kill all the people and animals since they all produce CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 One volcanic eruption like Pinatubo puts out more "pollutants" than man does in years. Relating to the "human caused" ozone hole, Pinatubo put out more chlorine into the atmosphere than man has EVER done. CO2 is now a "greenhouse gas". Lets kill all the people and animals since they all produce CO2. We have been through this and you are way off base. Although people and animals produce CO2, the trees and some other plants use it and convert it to oxygen. The O in CO2 stands for Oxygen which means air. If we got rid of all the people and animals, the trees and other CO2 using plants would eventually die and only fish would be around. Methane is the problem more than CO2. Mammals like cows produce methane when they fart. I think it would be sad but I would be in favor of a rule to kill all mammals so that we could be sure humans would survive. We discussed this in another thread which got erased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 Methane is the problem more than CO2. Mammals like cows produce methane when they fart. I think it would be sad but I would be in favor of a rule to kill all mammals so that we could be sure humans would survive. Hamsters are mammals too. I don't t think Sammy or Carl would like that idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 It's nutjobs like this guy who make it difficult for actual scientists to get thier point across to the masses without being laughed at. Fact is, we don't know how much humans have affected the natural climate change for the reasons Dan pointed out: we haven't been collecting the data on it long enough to really know. What cannot be disputed is that CO2 does absorb infrared raditation and will cause a warming affect. Yes, volcanic eruptions do in fact put large amounts of particulates and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the thing, is, they don't happen on a constant basis, as is the case with the byproducts of combustion. The other fact that has not been mentioned here, that concerns me much more than rising sea levels in and of themselves is the effect that all that freshwater will have on global climate and thermohaline circulation in the worlds oceans. All that water doesn't just slosh around, there are actual currents and patterns in effect, which directly drive weather on Earth. Bottom line is that we just don't know how much we are affecting climate change. We haven't been doing it long enough to say for sure. Either way, we have to find other ways to supply energy to our masses eventually. Peak Oil will take care of the problem eventually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 Hamsters are mammals too. I don't t think Sammy or Carl would like that idea They are rodents, not mammals. Plus, I have more than enough money to pay someone off to keep them alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 I have more than enough money to pay someone off I see you understand Al Gore's real philosophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 It's nutjobs like this guy who make it difficult for actual scientists to get thier point across to the masses without being laughed at. ... The other fact that has not been mentioned here, that concerns me much more than rising sea levels in and of themselves is the effect that all that freshwater will have on global climate and thermohaline circulation in the worlds oceans. All that water doesn't just slosh around, there are actual currents and patterns in effect, which directly drive weather on Earth. Case in point: global warming will lead to localized global cooling. The last time the north pole melted (about 5 million yeas ago) it led to freezing temperatures in Europe. It has to do with the mid-atlantic conveyer belt. Right now, warm salty water from the gulf stream glides along to Europe keeping it warmer than it's latitude would dictate. But salt water is heavier than fresh water, and when the two meet the former is driven down to the ocean floor and dispersed. As the north pole ice pack melts, it creates a steadily encroaching bank of less salty water which will in time act as a break on the conveyer belt and disrupt it before it ever gets to Europe. Long-term outlook: Spain will be more like Maine in temperature, France like Newfoundland, and England like the Hudson Bay. It's happened before. Sell off your beach-front villas and your stock in Spanish olive oil companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 6, 2008 Share Posted April 6, 2008 Case in point: global warming will lead to localized global cooling. The last time the north pole melted (about 5 million yeas ago) it led to freezing temperatures in Europe. It has to do with the mid-atlantic conveyer belt. Right now, warm salty water from the gulf stream glides along to Europe keeping it warmer than it's latitude would dictate. But salt water is heavier than fresh water, and when the two meet the former is driven down to the ocean floor and dispersed. As the north pole ice pack melts, it creates a steadily encroaching bank of less salty water which will in time act as a break on the conveyer belt and disrupt it before it ever gets to Europe. Long-term outlook: Spain will be more like Maine in temperature, France like Newfoundland, and England like the Hudson Bay. It's happened before. Sell off your beach-front villas and your stock in Spanish olive oil companies. Thanks for the history lesson. I'm curious if that is why Spain and Maine sound alike. Is it because they were alike in the olden days? Plus they have that song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Thanks for the history lesson. I'm curious if that is why Spain and Maine sound alike. Is it because they were alike in the olden days? Plus they have that song. Because during the Eocene they both featured heavy rain on their plains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Because during the Eocene they both featured heavy rain on their plains. That's what I figured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Solar Scientist David Archibald Says all you hippies are fulla crap and are gonna be begging for CO2 in the atmosphere in the not-so-distant future... I'm sure Al Gore and the rest of the IPCC will use the available cash to strike this down. Beware anything that has money, Pat Robertson, and Al Sharpton involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 It's nutjobs like this guy who make it difficult for actual scientists to get thier point across to the masses without being laughed at. Fact is, we don't know how much humans have affected the natural climate change for the reasons Dan pointed out: we haven't been collecting the data on it long enough to really know. What cannot be disputed is that CO2 does absorb infrared raditation and will cause a warming affect. Yes, volcanic eruptions do in fact put large amounts of particulates and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the thing, is, they don't happen on a constant basis, as is the case with the byproducts of combustion. The other fact that has not been mentioned here, that concerns me much more than rising sea levels in and of themselves is the effect that all that freshwater will have on global climate and thermohaline circulation in the worlds oceans. All that water doesn't just slosh around, there are actual currents and patterns in effect, which directly drive weather on Earth. Bottom line is that we just don't know how much we are affecting climate change. We haven't been doing it long enough to say for sure. Either way, we have to find other ways to supply energy to our masses eventually. Peak Oil will take care of the problem eventually... Can't argue too much with this post, except that the nutjobs you refer to usually reach the conclusion that global warming is the most pressing need fcaing humanity and immediate action must be taken, regardless of cost. Never mind that "action" is usually unquantifiable, nor is the real cost nor the substantial unintended consequences. But I bet you can sell a lot of movies & books with images of Statue of Liberty's torch under water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 It happened once, it can happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts