On the Origins of Unexplained Maps

Originally posted by kenochs
I mean Columbus knew the world was round, knew the basic circumference and yet he thought he'd sailed to India... go figure.

ps: Zheng He is an awesome story... thanks for putting that out.


[edit on 25-1-2010 by kenochs]

I believe Columbus knew it wasn't india, and that he was fully well aware of where he was going: The New Atlantis, as dreamt of by Sir Francis Bacon.

Columbus was, according to some scholars, a Scot that was a member of the Scottish Rite.

His trip represented the culmination of the dream of Bacon, the great sage of Rosicrucianism.

For more info, read "The Secret Teachings Of All Ages" by Manly Hall.

Originally posted by telfyr
...

...

All of Antarctica has been claimed by one or the other nation starting in the 1900s. All except for Westantarctica (which has been claimed by a micronation).

Which happens to consist mostly of water & small island.
Could they have known in 1900 that there was less land under that ice?
Did they maybe pick & choose this based on some foreknowledge?

en.wikipedia.org...

Some things to consider when discussing what the Antarctic landmass would look like:

- higher ocean levels would create new seas where there are currently none. For example, the Black Sea would swell, as would the Baltic and Caspian. But places like the Mojave, which is well below current sea level, would likely fill at take in a considerable amount of water. This is not the only place, just an example.

- if there is less ice, there will be MUCH more water vapor in the atmosphere. On such a global scale, what would this effect be on the ocean levels?

- the aquifer system is never considered. the underground waters store massive amounts of water. How much more could be stored? What about prior underground systems that have dried out? How much water did they hold? How deep would this be capable of going? How much could it absorb into the crust, filling in gaps, caves, cracks, and holes?

- How do we know that the continents as we see them today are not the only continents there were? We have a hell of a legend to go on, and many stories of disappearing and missing islands (one with a Spanish monastery built on it). It is not completely unprecedented to think that a VERY large landmass was not sunk. The earthquakes caused by the release of polar pressure could be enough to create such a massive problem.

The only reason i bring any of this up is to point out that conjecture is too kind of a word for the discussions around what Antarctica should/would look like on a map. The key is to determine if that is what is represented, and then decide if it was based on fact, or someone elses prior conjecture.

reply to post by operation mindcrime


I think it's safe to say that it was just bad mapping of South America. Great work on pin pointing the specific resemblances.

reply to post by kenochs


Longitude has been used for a lot longer than the 18th century onwards as RMW88 has already explained in his posts.

They said in the ancient times,there have been global trading all around the world. Coca leaves which are native to South America were found in Egyptian tombs and so on. The stories about the Chinese even discovering America before Columbus in 1421. The Chinese at the time where the only ones with the man power to build massive fleets that sailed the world. The story said that those who sail to America like Columbus had maps of North America that they got from the Chinese. Anyways here is a link

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by agent00duece


It is interesting to point that out. Marco Polo went to China just a century or so before Columbus sailed.

While it is not a glaring sign, it does make sense, and supports your claim.

I believe i recall seeing Manly Hall discussing this very thing, about Marco Polo being responsible for bringing back lots of information, in addition to other things.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

interesting stuff these maps that show knowledge of great antiquities
I think they confirm the biblical account of the flood that drowned all the advanced but severely degeraated civilizations as the result of fallen angels cohabiting with the daughters of men to corrupt the gene pool that God had ordained through Adam.
They ,under Satan's orders did that in order to forestall God coming down as a man to rectify the sin /death problem [ seed of the woman] - but God pulled an ace and drowned the lot so Noah could start over and Christ could come as prophesied for all the lost of earth- past present and future.
www.youtube.com...
y

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Yacov]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Some things to consider when discussing what the Antarctic landmass would look like:

- higher ocean levels would create new seas where there are currently none. For example, the Black Sea would swell, as would the Baltic and Caspian. But places like the Mojave, which is well below current sea level, would likely fill at take in a considerable amount of water. This is not the only place, just an example.


If all the Earths ice melted, and Antarctica is 90% of the total, the sea level rise is calculated at around 80 meters. Beach front property in Arizona anyone?

- if there is less ice, there will be MUCH more water vapor in the atmosphere. On such a global scale, what would this effect be on the ocean levels?

How so? The dew point is the dew point. It rains when the atmosphere gets saturated. Of course, if the ice has melted, the average temperature of the atmosphere is warmer, so the dew point is raised (warmer air holds more water before it rains). So to answer the question we need to know how much of a temperature rise we are assuming. But I don't think it will be significantly higher.

- the aquifer system is never considered. the underground waters store massive amounts of water. How much more could be stored? What about prior underground systems that have dried out? How much water did they hold? How deep would this be capable of going? How much could it absorb into the crust, filling in gaps, caves, cracks, and holes?

I'm not sure this is very significant. As the sea level rises, it is going to fill in stuff like low-lying basins. Any caves it encounters, will be filled in, sure. Are there many caves that can hold the equivalent of say Sydney Harbor or San Fransisco Bay? If so is that going to have much of an impact on a global scale? Dunno, but I kinda doubt it will have an affect on the order of a meter globally; that would be a hell of a lot of water stored that way.

Inland aquifers wouldn't be affected at all.

- How do we know that the continents as we see them today are not the only continents there were? We have a hell of a legend to go on, and many stories of disappearing and missing islands (one with a Spanish monastery built on it). It is not completely unprecedented to think that a VERY large landmass was not sunk. The earthquakes caused by the release of polar pressure could be enough to create such a massive problem.

There used to be fewer continents than today. There was once only one continent: Pangaea.

It is indeed frightening to consider what effect the rising land mass will have on the rest of the Earth's crust. The estimate for the Antarctic land mass is a rise of around 950 meters in the interior and about 60 meters along the coast. That is going to cause a heck of a disruption in the crust over a wide area. I expect it is going to displace a lot of water too, I don't know whether or not that effect is included in the sea level rise.

The only reason i bring any of this up is to point out that conjecture is too kind of a word for the discussions around what Antarctica should/would look like on a map. The key is to determine if that is what is represented, and then decide if it was based on fact, or someone elses prior conjecture.

The (modern) maps are based on Geophysical measurements, there is no modeling or conjecture involved. I don't expect the calculations of how much the land will rise are perfectly accurate, but they would surely be very close. And the sea rise is calculation is relatively straight forward.

reply to post by rnaa

If all the Earths ice melted, and Antarctica is 90% of the total, the sea level rise is calculated at around 80 meters. Beach front property in Arizona anyone?

This is the basis of my dispute: that the calculations are a wild guess.

How so? The dew point is the dew point. It rains when the atmosphere gets saturated. Of course, if the ice has melted, the average temperature of the atmosphere is warmer, so the dew point is raised (warmer air holds more water before it rains). So to answer the question we need to know how much of a temperature rise we are assuming. But I don't think it will be significantly higher.

Consider, there are many factors. First, the increase in temperature causes an increase in atmospheric density via an increase in water vapor. This decreases ice sublimation in mountain areas.

The loss of ice creates a higher temperature, at least regionally, due to the loss of the reflective surface of ice, and the exposure of dark soil/rock.

i believe, in my opinion, that there is no way for Antarctica to have no ice short of crustal shift, but that is not even part of the discussion.

I'm not sure this is very significant. As the sea level rises, it is going to fill in stuff like low-lying basins. Any caves it encounters, will be filled in, sure. Are there many caves that can hold the equivalent of say Sydney Harbor or San Fransisco Bay? If so is that going to have much of an impact on a global scale? Dunno, but I kinda doubt it will have an affect on the order of a meter globally; that would be a hell of a lot of water stored that way.

Inland aquifers wouldn't be affected at all.

To see the significance, take a cup and fill it with rocks/gravel. Note the amount of apparent, available space. Next, take a cup of water and begin pouring it into this cup of rocks. Note how much water fits into the previously "full" cup of rocks.

To be honest, i would postulate that the increased water level would significantly add more weight on the edges of continental shelves, thus pushing them further down (possibly tilting inland mountain ranges slightly higher, like a teeter totter, or creating massive fault lines as pressures are released via faulting).

Inland aquifers are affected just as every other water system is affected. Consider:

- glacial melt, especially the large amounts of meltwater runoff from beneath the glacier (ice cannot form under very high pressure, and there is always a fair water "cushion" between the bottom of the glacier and the ground beneath). This is a big provider of fresh water systems. Entire river systems are formed from mountain glacial runoff. Best water in N. America, in Worland, WY, is fed from a spring that is glacial in origin.

- increased atmospheric water creates additional rains/storms. This adds to inland aquifer systems.

- pressure on continental plates impacts aquifer levels. A lot of it has to do with heat pressures lower in the crust. If the crust is higher (further from heat), less pressure exists and water can saturate deeper.

- There is still the whole concept of of what glacial dams can do, not only to freshwater systems, but salt water systems as well. But remember, if it never makes it to the coast, the river water will not affect sea level. The more water you can hold inland, the less water there will be hitting the coast in the form of ocean.

There used to be fewer continents than today. There was once only one continent: Pangaea.

It is indeed frightening to consider what effect the rising land mass will have on the rest of the Earth's crust. The estimate for the Antarctic land mass is a rise of around 950 meters in the interior and about 60 meters along the coast. That is going to cause a heck of a disruption in the crust over a wide area. I expect it is going to displace a lot of water too, I don't know whether or not that effect is included in the sea level rise.

I am familiar with Pangea. This is not what i refer to. What i refer to is a landmass that may or may not have existed, which would have displaced a large amount of water, thus pushing ocean levels up considerably.

It only pertains to the discussion of what Antarctic coastlines used to look like. It just supports my notion that any discussion about such matters are highly speculative due to the complete unknown nature of the topic. A few folks seemed to be a little too attached to their position, and i was just offering a reminder.

The (modern) maps are based on Geophysical measurements, there is no modeling or conjecture involved. I don't expect the calculations of how much the land will rise are perfectly accurate, but they would surely be very close. And the sea rise is calculation is relatively straight forward.

I was referring to the maps that postulate the former coast lines, and how they were used to determine authenticity of these maps.

The straight forward nature of the sea level increases is exactly what i am criticising. It is only straight forward because it is entirely inaccurate and not accounting for the true reality of how the situation works.

Sometimes science understands things well, and they define the processes adequately.

Other times, they have no idea what they are talking about, but they are trying to convince themselves and others. Things related to Earths environment falls into this category. We are wrong on just about every occassion, right down to the local weather man.

Hey guys I've been following your posts and replies to each other about Antarctica, the effect on sea levels and other variations or effects that shedding it's ice may have on the world.

It is a very interesting and complex subject that nobody can accurately predict as Meteorology is educated guessing for the most part.

I'm not here to take sides but to share my opinion

I feel sure that Antartica will not warm to an extent that the continent loses the majority of it's ice for three reasons:

1-Wind:
www.newmediastudio.org...

2-Current:
explorations.ucsd.edu...

3-Sunlight:
kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca...

The cells that distribute and circulate wind around the globe ensure that the air is cooled before reaching the South Pole.

Ocean currents also cool and play in favor of preserving the continent in a prison of ice.

Finally less sunlight falls per square meter on to Antarctica than on land masses and oceans up at the equator and surrounding areas.

Also about sea levels rising if the continent did shed a large amount of ice. It is more than likely sea levels would rise, but I do not believe they would rise across the ENTIRE globe, only in certain areas as densities and gravity varies across the globe. (NASA launched the GRACE satellites which is finding some pretty interesting results).

apod.nasa.gov...

Then again if all this ice was melted and transformed in to vapor and water, there is no telling how much this would upset the global balances of warm currents, cold currents, air masses and wind distribution, which all play a massive role in the global weather system.

Thanks for your time, would like to hear you thoughts and opinions.

[edit on 11232009 by RWM88]

reply to post by RWM88


My only real thoughts relate to how current is affected. With the melting of glacial regions, in the past there have been massive, sea sized freshwater lakes that form behind glacial dams. Once these dams give way, the water floods out and introduces MASSIVE amounts of fresh, cold water into the ocean.

The effect this has on ocean currents certainly would be massive in scale. I believe this is what prevented much of the ocean travel in ancient times, as the Atlantic was storied to be full of horribly strong currents and whirlpools.

I often wonder why fish was not a major part of the English/Irish diet. Being so close to the ocean, one would think that a potato famine would not hurt so bad. Of course, if the N. Atlantic were desalinated via a YD impact, or some massive meltoff/release of water from a glacial dam, it could take centuries to rectify itself and for the ecosystem to balance back out.

EDIT TO ADD: crustal slippage would put antarctica at a possibly different latitude. It doesn't have to remain in the south pole, and that would represent a big assumption.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Telos
And lets not forget the the use of longitude in a time when nobody was suppose to know it existed.

Great point. I also believe these maps had to be created using aerial surveying.

Early in the sixteenth century, Admiral Piri Reis, Turkish Navy, had acquired a map used by Columbus. Combining it with Greek maps dating back to Alexander the Great, he compiled a world chart in 1513.

In 1953, a Turkish naval officer sent the Piri Reis map to the Chief Engineer of the United States Navy Hydrographic Office. To evaluate it, the Chief Engineer asked the aid of Captain Mallery, an authority on old maps, who had previously worked with him. After a long study, Mallery discovered the projection method used. Confirming this and other technical points, the Navy cartographers came to these conclusions:

1. Columbus had a map, on his historic voyage to America, which
showed the coasts of Yucatan, Guatemala, South America to the Straits
of Magellan and a large part of the Antarctic coast.

2. The original maps went back at least 5,000 years, and some data
shown went back even farther. Part of the land areas shown had been
buried under ice for twenty centuries or more.

3. Only highly trained survey teams and cartographers could have
produced charts of such "amazing accuracy." Their operations must
have covered the entire earth. "We don't know how they could do it so
accurately without the airplane," Captain Mallery summed it up.

source: www.zoklet.net...

If the currents were changed then the weather patterns and climates of the world would change dramatically like you say.

For example, the UK is at the edge of the Gulf Stream which keeps us relatively more warmer than the rest of Europe in winter, if that was disturbed or retracted somehow then it is estimated that the UK would freeze over severely.

Actually before the last ice age, there was a land bridge from Europe to England (The English Channel now fills this bridge), we didn't used to be an island. It's a little example of how much land mass, shape and size may change under severe changes in climate conditions.

Yeah, if the plates shifted severe enough, it could do just that.

The thing is, Geology and Meteorology have only been around as a recorded science for a couple of hundred years...that's nothing in the life time of the planet. I would safely bet that there is more to plate tectonics than currently known because there is some conflicting data that pops it's ugly face up every now and then.

Thanks for the reply

reply to post by nepafogo


Hey there neppafogo,
I know the accuracy of these maps may seem amazing but actually our ancestors we're much more proficient in mathematics than we credit them for.

The maps would not need to be done aerially because charts (used at sea) and maps (used for land) have been accurately created by using trigonometry and triangulation. Also the mysterious maps in this thread being discussed about are still horribly distorted and not proper representation of the continents.

This is lazy but I'll post this from a previous reply to another ATS member.
Please enjoy and thanks for the time

***Sorry mate, that's a mistake that a lot of people get. Ancients had systems that could calculate longitude by time. 360 degrees in a sphere, divide by 15 and that gives us 24 hours for one complete revolution of the Earth. 1 hour for every 15 degrees.
(The Arabs knew the world was a sphere before western civilization. Plus the ancient world traded books, scrolls and knowledge much like we trade oil and gas now a days. That's why Greek architects gained knowledge of building and construction from the Egyptians).

They used a master time, like we have GMT, but back then there master time was probably in the Med or Middle East. They could also have a good idea of Lat as well by using the north star, Polaris. They used a stick like instrument with measurements marked.

Comparing the Local Time with the Master Time and the difference between sun rise, noon and sun set at each location would give them a fairly good idea of where they are, relevant to the location of where the Master Time is situated.

Ancients also knew the Celestial Sphere of the back of there hands, they mapped out, tabulated and even had almanacs for these kinds of things.***

I'll add this,

I'm not saying that an advanced human civilization didn't created these maps. For all we know it could have been a civilization long forgotten to history since the data on these maps date so far back. Just recently a metropolis was found in South Africa dated to 200000 years old!

I am just pointing out that our ancestors had the know how and tools to create maps, and fantastic maps for their standards and quite impressive for today's standards.

(You mentioned ariel and this is the first thought that popped in to my mind. Please correct me if I am wrong on your thoughts.)

I believe ET has visited this planet and still are today, but I would never credit Extra-Terrestrial intervention with these maps, pyramids or any other wonders of the world.

Have some more faith in Homosapien ability my friend





[edit on 11232009 by RWM88]

reply to post by RWM88


Geology doesn't really work that way. It's like saying someone who learns to read can only read various words in a dictionary that have been added since they learned to read. Geology allows very accurate "reading" of the history of rocks, and how/where they formed. Yes, unknowns are encountered from time to time, but they don't throw a spanner in the works, they merely aid the geologists in making their science more accurate. There most definitely is more to plate tectonics than is currently known, but I guarantee it won't invalidate our current understanding entirely, or even mostly. If anything it will mean we can make even more accurate measurements.

reply to post by davesidious


Sorry, your right.

I should have specified more.

For Geology I feel that there is more to plate tectonics.

For Meteorology THIS is what I mean't to specify as educated guessing. Although for the majority it can see what weather is in store for us for 3 to 4 days, beyond that it is educated guessing.

Thanks for pointing this mistake out to me

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

If all the Earths ice melted, and Antarctica is 90% of the total, the sea level rise is calculated at around 80 meters. Beach front property in Arizona anyone?

This is the basis of my dispute: that the calculations are a wild guess.

They are pretty straight forward calculations made from observable data.

How so? The dew point is the dew point. It rains when the atmosphere gets saturated. Of course, if the ice has melted, the average temperature of the atmosphere is warmer, so the dew point is raised (warmer air holds more water before it rains). So to answer the question we need to know how much of a temperature rise we are assuming. But I don't think it will be significantly higher.

Consider, there are many factors. First, the increase in temperature causes an increase in atmospheric density via an increase in water vapor. This decreases ice sublimation in mountain areas.

The loss of ice creates a higher temperature, at least regionally, due to the loss of the reflective surface of ice, and the exposure of dark soil/rock.

i believe, in my opinion, that there is no way for Antarctica to have no ice short of crustal shift, but that is not even part of the discussion.

But none or the 'many factors' you quote change the dew point. The atmosphere will hold more moisture if its temperature rises. If that is the cause of the ice loss, then more water can be stored in the atmosphere before it rains; which is your original point. I am only disputing how much of a change, and it depends solely on how much temperature change there is.

If there is a 'crustal shift' that moves Antarctica into warmer latitudes, and that causes the ice to melt, then atmospheric water vapor will not be affected.

I'm not sure this is very significant. As the sea level rises, it is going to fill in stuff like low-lying basins. Any caves it encounters, will be filled in, sure. Are there many caves that can hold the equivalent of say Sydney Harbor or San Fransisco Bay? If so is that going to have much of an impact on a global scale? Dunno, but I kinda doubt it will have an affect on the order of a meter globally; that would be a hell of a lot of water stored that way.

Inland aquifers wouldn't be affected at all.

To see the significance, take a cup and fill it with rocks/gravel. Note the amount of apparent, available space. Next, take a cup of water and begin pouring it into this cup of rocks. Note how much water fits into the previously "full" cup of rocks.

I know exactly what you meant. But notice that there isn't all that significant much happening right now. You don't generally find sea water when you dig a well say 100 meters from the beach. Coastlines are not constant salt water marshes. Yes these areas do exist, but they don't hold enough water to lower the sea level by tens of meters.

To be honest, i would postulate that the increased water level would significantly add more weight on the edges of continental shelves, thus pushing them further down (possibly tilting inland mountain ranges slightly higher, like a teeter totter, or creating massive fault lines as pressures are released via faulting).

No more so than existing coastlines are affected by that means.

Inland aquifers are affected just as every other water system is affected. Consider:

- glacial melt, especially the large amounts of meltwater runoff from beneath the glacier (ice cannot form under very high pressure, and there is always a fair water "cushion" between the bottom of the glacier and the ground beneath). This is a big provider of fresh water systems. Entire river systems are formed from mountain glacial runoff. Best water in N. America, in Worland, WY, is fed from a spring that is glacial in origin.

Yes, non-antarctic glacier melt will feed streams and rivers, some of which will find its way into underground aquifers. OK. I was referring to affects to the inland aquifers caused specifically by sea level rise.

- increased atmospheric water creates additional rains/storms. This adds to inland aquifer systems.

Except there won't be much change.

- pressure on continental plates impacts aquifer levels. A lot of it has to do with heat pressures lower in the crust. If the crust is higher (further from heat), less pressure exists and water can saturate deeper.

but you are postulating above that the sea rise will put more pressure on existing continental plates, pushing them 'lower'. I don't agree, of course, I figure its a 'push'. Only Antarctica will rise as the weight is lifted.

- There is still the whole concept of of what glacial dams can do, not only to freshwater systems, but salt water systems as well. But remember, if it never makes it to the coast, the river water will not affect sea level. The more water you can hold inland, the less water there will be hitting the coast in the form of ocean.

Yes, and again, I was referring to changes specifically due to sea level rise, which is what I read your original comment to be referring to as well.

I am familiar with Pangea. This is not what i refer to. What i refer to is a landmass that may or may not have existed, which would have displaced a large amount of water, thus pushing ocean levels up considerably.

It only pertains to the discussion of what Antarctic coastlines used to look like. It just supports my notion that any discussion about such matters are highly speculative due to the complete unknown nature of the topic. A few folks seemed to be a little too attached to their position, and i was just offering a reminder.

Just to be clear, you are suggesting that in the 15th century, when these maps were drawn, there was another continent that actually caused a higher sea level, so the ice free Antarctica would have looked different from today? This needs a little more thinking through on your part. For a start the European coastline hasn't changed very much in that time period.

I was referring to the maps that postulate the former coast lines, and how they were used to determine authenticity of these maps.

The straight forward nature of the sea level increases is exactly what i am criticising. It is only straight forward because it is entirely inaccurate and not accounting for the true reality of how the situation works.

In other words, you don't understand the formulas for volume, or the change in volume of water as it melts and is relieved from pressure, or what the mass of ice is, or the shape of existing coastlines and the topographical features, and therefore no one else can know those things and do it correctly either.

Sometimes science understands things well, and they define the processes adequately.

Other times, they have no idea what they are talking about, but they are trying to convince themselves and others. Things related to Earths environment falls into this category. We are wrong on just about every occassion, right down to the local weather man.

I disagree with your distrust of science, of course. But in what way does this have to do with the discussion. There is no room for 'speculation' that might be wrong here. There is a measured mass of ice. If it melts it has to go somewhere.

That somewhere is the ocean for the Antarctic ice. Some inland glacier melt will find its way into inland fresh water aquifers - especially where those aquifers have been significantly impacted by human withdrawals. Inland aquifer 'overflows' will make it to the ocean eventually. But 90% of the planets fresh water is on Antarctica, so inland glacier's account for a very small amount anyway.

This means that the sea level rise can be determined very accurately.

reply to post by rnaa

They are pretty straight forward calculations made from observable data.

But the observable data....

listen, you remember when they found the massive, underground "ocean" in China? This is what i am talking about. What is the limit of what that body can hold?

I live above the Edward Aquifer. What is the limit IT can hold?

How about all these other wells that have dried up? Or the two large lakes that are dry in my county alone? Big Lake, TX could use some to refill its lake (that dried up 20+ years ago).

The capacity for fresh water storage is completely unknown. I suppose a guesstimate may be out there. Likely quite a few guesstimates, with most of them contradicting each other. But i don't know for sure.

I am saying this,but i think you are not seeing how it ties together. If it is warmer, there is more water vapor in the air. This normally will lead to increased storm systems, and larger amounts of rainfall. This puts quite a bit of fresh water out over the continents. With all the continents recieving more rain, more fresh water is available for the fresh water systems. However, there are many dry, low lying areas that at one time held lakes, ponds, creeks, rivers, and seas. These areas, in all probability, will begin to hold water once again, if it rains, and thus close off that water from the loop that returns it to the ocean.

I understand you keep saying, "It won't be that much". I am saying it will. This seems to be the dispute. But it does no good to continue saying, "It won't be that much" without at least trying to rationalize why.

I live in the desert of West Texas. I can tell you that we have a LOT of capacity for fresh water storage within our dry lakes, creeks, wells, and aquifers (the Edwards is pretty low right now).

Keep in mind, the dew point is not the contention. It matters not if the dew point changes. Our atmosphere has a capacity to store water capor, and we are not anywhere near this capacity.

I realize that there isn't a whole lot hapening right now. That has nothing to do with this. Nothing happening right now kind of supports my assertion that sea levels won't rise as much as people think, if the ice caps melt (which it seems all too many people are prepared to declare is not only happening, but is humans fault...but that is another topic altogether ).

Re: the weight of the oceans on coastlines....this doesn't make sense:

No more so than existing coastlines are affected by that means.

I would say that the current ocean weight presses down significantly on the coast lines and contintental shelves. I would venture a guess that if the ice caps began to grow again, we would see the Himalaya's begin to dip back down again. Yes, i understand plate tectonics, but i think that there are factors not often considered there, as well.

I will stand by my assertion that increased water vapor in the atmosphere will fuel more storms. It is basic. If the ice caps melt, this means warmer oceans. Warmer oceans, along with more available water vapor means stronger hurricanes, and increased monsoons. The "El Nino" effect would be greatly increased. You would see a massive increase in the engine that processes fresh water from the ocean (i.e., our weather patterns).

When i postulate a decrease in crustal pressure creating more opportunity for water absorption, i refer to inland. If you press down on the continental shelf on one side, like a teeter totter it will tilt up on the other side. In mountain rangers, and hill country (where aquifers "recharge"), you would see a possible greater capacity due to increased faulting, as well as decreased pressure in the crust (from the mantle heat).

I do not suggest that in the 15th century, Antarctica was ice free. I suggest that in the 15th century someone copied a map from a much, much older, antedeluvian cyvilization.

Regarding:

In other words, you don't understand the formulas for volume, or the change in volume of water as it melts and is relieved from pressure, or what the mass of ice is, or the shape of existing coastlines and the topographical features, and therefore no one else can know those things and do it correctly either.

I will assume positive intent. But it seems somewhat rude.

Let me clarify: it seems that there are so many more factors that would impact this topic that are not even considered, that i seriously doubt the currently accepted assumptions.

I hope you can forgive the lack of quoting. I just kind of went down the line and gave responses.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I live in the desert of West Texas. I can tell you that we have a LOT of capacity for fresh water storage within our dry lakes, creeks, wells, and aquifers (the Edwards is pretty low right now).

Yeah. I used to live in Tucson, Arizona. Largest city in the world to get 100% of its water from its underground aquifer. There used to be a debate about how much water was down there, 10 years worth or 100 years worth. Difficult to determine. No body questioned that the water table was dropping decade by decade. Nowadays they are shipping water from Lake Havasu through the middle of the desert (evaporating all the way) to Tucson where they pump it back down into the Santa Cruz valley aquifer to recharge it.

And I now live in Australia which is extremely dry, especially so for the last decade of drought. Lake Eyre is seldom filled, but when it is, it is the 17th largest lake in the world at approximately 9500 square kilometers.

Lets put some perspective on that number. Lake Vostok is the 15th largest lake in the world at 15690 square kilometers. Vostok is could almost fill Lake Eyre twice over. And Vostok is a sub-glacial lake in Antarctica completely buried under at least 2 kilometers of glacial ice.

Sure there is lots of underground storage around that could 'buffer' some of that water. But how is it going to get there? It isn't going to evaporate from Antarctica and magically be sequestered away in the West Texas or Santa Cruz or the Central Californian or Lake Eyre or wherever aquifer. Weather patterns will surely change, of course, but I can't imagine you are grasping the enormity of the numbers here.

Can you imagine how much water is involved in the calculated 80 meter rise in sea levels across the globe? OK, look, I can't speak to how much 'seepage' into the ground they include in the calculations. But there is no reason to take that value as any different to the current situation. There are caves that were flooded during the last major sea rise event too. The Caspian Sea was formed in this way, probably the Mediterranian, certainly Port Phillip Bay (Melbourne Australia) was formed in this way.

As the sea rises low lying areas are going to be flooded. Huge areas will be flooded. The Salton Sea will become the Mohave Sea. The Netherlands will disappear, along with much of the rest of Northwestern Europe. The Saint Lawrence river will be a salt water estuary half way to Niagra Falls.

Forget about New Orleans of course, and start worrying about Chattenooga which is 263 feet above sea level. 80 meters is a bit over 262 feet.

Closer to your home, Houston is 43 feet above current sea levels. In an ice free Antarctica scenario, it would be over 200 feet deep (no great loss IMHO). Dallas would almost be a sea port. I ask you really, is your West Texas aquifer going to absorb that? How far down is the water level now right now?

I'm just saying... think about the magnitude of the change we are talking about here...

reply to post by rnaa


Outstanding. Point well made.

My only point was to say that 80 meters is a guess.