It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sea levels 'to surge at least a metre'

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 


IF the seas warm then it is not ice melting you have to fear primarily but thermal expansion. When water warms it increases in volume. Forget air temperatures where the sea level is concerned, watch the surface and deep temperatures, if they are increasing then the sea level will be rising.




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan

Yeah, there would be some thermal expansion, but don't forget about all that water vapor that will evaporate as the seas get warmer... that alone will raise... no, wait a minute... that would lower sea level. Sorry, nevermind.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


deep water temperatures? speaking of which, do you know what a thermocline is?

did you know that the temperatures below a few hundred metres of depth remain nearly constant, no matter what happens on the surface?

btw, i found a thread whose latter portion deals almost exclusively with thermal expansion... www.abovetopsecret.com...

do you even care or is it again the 'Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, Y/N' argument, because if it is, i guess all further debate will be curtailed in the name of consensus, right?w that the temperatures below a few hundred metres of depth remains nearly constant, no matter what happens on the surface?

do you even care or is it again the 'Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, Y/N' argument, because if it is, i guess all further debate will be curtailed in the name of consensus, right?

[edit on 2009.3.16 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


I suggest you read an earlier post of mine which detailed the last catastrophic rise in temperature 55 million years ago and the deep and surface temperature increases.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
water levels have always risen and fallen over the history of the earth.

Rather than worry about weather or not it is man induced, what we should be doing is trying to live with the planet and not try and control it.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


so, now the dinos were wiped out by GW, oh well, the more things change the more they remain the same.

i truely wonder how anyone would measure or even guess the water temperatures are various depths 55 million years ago, though.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance

i truely wonder how anyone would measure or even guess the water temperatures are various depths 55 million years ago, though.

Oh, that is easy. We drill ice samples, we examine the content of the air bubbles, we assume that no change in composition has occurred in those samples and that they are from the proper time period, then we write a computer program (we keep the source code secret, of course) that 'analyzes' the data and states that the dinosaurs died of Global Warming.

You make things so difficult with all those facts, man...


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Do you guys come here for all your information? It's not that hard to research this and come up with data instead of snide comments with no basis in science or common sense.

Here is the data on the temperatures.


Average global temperatures increased by ~6 °C in the space of 20,000 years. This is based on Mg/Ca and δ18O values of forams. δ18O is a more useful proxy for palæotemperature during the Eocene, as the lack of ice makes it safe to assume that the oceans' δ18O signature is constant.[13] Due to the positive feedback effect of melting ice reducing albedo, temperature increases would have been greatest at the poles, which reached an average annual temperature of 10-20 °C;[14] the surface waters of the northernmost[15] Arctic ocean warmed, seasonally at least, enough to support tropical lifeforms[16] requiring surface temperatures of over 22°C.[17]


It's like a new religion. "The earth warmed millions of years ago so it's natural now". Well if you think anoxic oceans are a good thing, go try to live off some of the dead zones that are multiplying now.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


Thats right, the state of NY could be hit very hard, also as much as a few feet in parts of Washington(I wish). Its definitely going to happen, there has been so many reports as of late that 'Global Warming' is speeding up, but its not our fault, unlike Al Gore would like you to think. Maybe he shouldn't fly personal planes or have multiple homes himself. He is such a hypocrite and deserves every negative thing said about him!

And now WE get taxed for some fear mongering by Al Gore.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by unknown known]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan

Hmmm, all I did was mention that evaporation increases with temperature (much more so than thermal expansion, btw) and made mention of the methods being used to extrapolate temperature estimates from pre-historic times using ice core samples. Exactly which of those was incorrect?

Until you explain the errors behind my posts, I will assume the error was that I disagreed with you.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Shere Khaan

Hmmm, all I did was mention that evaporation increases with temperature (much more so than thermal expansion, btw) and made mention of the methods being used to extrapolate temperature estimates from pre-historic times using ice core samples. Exactly which of those was incorrect?

Until you explain the errors behind my posts, I will assume the error was that I disagreed with you.


TheRedneck


I posted why you were wrong, but you didn't even bother to read the article, sheesh. There is far more evidence than just ice cores.

As for the thermal expansion, it doesn't take a genius to work out that the sea levels have been rising for the last 100 years means that evaporation IS NOT outstripping thermal expansion, unless you want to try and tell me that it's all from ice melt run off.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan

Actually, you posted an alternate method of detecting temperature; ice core samples are still used extensively. But, since you want to get into this method:

Foraminifera shells of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), having oxygen in them, and being found in many common geological features, are most commonly used to do tests on. The ratio of 18O to 16O is used to tell the temperature of the surrounding water of the time solidified, indirectly. The ratio varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water, as well as other factors such as the water's salinity, and the volume of water locked up in ice sheets.

δ18O also reflects local evaporation and freshwater input, as rainwater is 16O enriched - a result of 16O's preferential evaporation from seawater. Consequently, the surface ocean contains greater amounts of 18O around the subtropics and tropics where there is more evaporation, and lesser amounts of 18O in the mid-latitudes where it rains more.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

That's a fancy way of saying that δ18O is affected by several variables, surrounding temperature at time of solidification being one of these. Salinity is another significant variable that could give inexact data if our estimate of the salinity of the water surrounding the samples tested is inaccurate. If memory serves, every instance I have read of this method being used has been backed up by.... wait for it.... drum roll please.... ICE CORE SAMPLES!

In reality, it is not much different from Carbon-14 dating, which uses a similar process, along with similar assumptions, to measure time. This method will be useful in helping to determine the conditions throughout history, and may indeed be accurate. But it is foolhardy to pursue an entire global scare campaign and denial of technology to the poorer among us based on δ18O, or on ice core samples.

Sorry if you missed the satire in my earlier posts. I'll try to type clearer in the future for you.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


where, which depth, how ......?

sorry, they have proxies that's all. making us believe that they can somehow accurately derive the (average?) temperature distribution at ocean depth around the world 55 million years ago strains credulity.

tbh, it's a challenge today, because all satellites rely on some form of radiation detection (IR, d'uh) which by its very nature is a surface phenomenon. using probes will yield only point samples and it does take considerable time to gauge all depths.

heck, the deep seas are so off limits to us that giant squids were relegated to yarn and excessive rum consumption. until they found some, of course, but that's another matter entirely. the point is, anyone can make bold claims when it's about the polar ice caps, where approx. a handful of people goes each year or deep water, where only probes and the odd research sub will venture.

sorry, i don't buy a single word of it, i've seen enough conveniently cooked (charcoal state) data, especially when it came to global warming that i have a right to remain overly sceptical. got time machine?

[edit on 2009.3.18 by Long Lance]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join