Is there an explanation for these events?

Over the last 100 years, not only has the earth's global temperature gone up, but natural disasters as well. Is this a coincidence or is there an explanation?

On May 26, 2010, Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan hit 53.5 degrees celsius or 128.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Russia, in 2010, experienced the hottest year in 1000 years and 10000 people died. These are just some of the anomalies that are increasing in frequencies.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a200be35553.jpg[/atsimg]

The image below shows the frequency of sink holes, you will notice that in 1998, there was a sharp spike in sinkholes. 1998 was also the year of El Niño and also a very hot year.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d9cbf394bf9.jpg[/atsimg]

Now fast forward to Jan 2011 where we have:

- mysterious mass deaths of birds and fish
- Jan 11th 2011, the sun rises two days early in greenland
- smaller birds are more aggressive to other bigger species of other birds and to squirrels and even humans
- Japan quake that led to a nuclear melt down
- Clocks in Italy Catania fast forward in time
- Volcano activity up
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e894bbcd0bc.jpeg[/atsimg]
source, a recent study also showed that earthquakes/seismic activity do trigger volcanic eruptions (or increase their heat flux). Other studies have shown that seismic activity is correlated with solar activity.

- Seal levels are rising, now the question is: are they rising due to an increase in temperature or something else. The sea levels cannot rise due to melting ice since ice has more volume than water (i.e it expands) hence melted ice would theoretically have less volume.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/01295a489dde.jpg[/atsimg]

Should we blame green house effects or is the explanation something worse? for example, Is extra terrestrial gravity to blame for rising sea levels? we know the distance between the moon and earth is increasing, so we cannot blame the moon.

Should we blame the sun or something else sinister?

reply to post by LiveEquation

Seal levels are rising, now the question is: are they rising due to an increase in temperature or something else. The sea levels cannot rise due to melting ice since ice has more volume than water (i.e it expands) hence melted ice would theoretically have less volume.

Are you saying that ice melting off of land and pouring into the oceans will not raise the sea levels? Even if iceburgs are melting, the part above the water would contribute to more water being in the oceans. Not to mention it would also contribute to the desalinization of the oceans.

We can only blame ourselves for the most part. At this point in time, here, now, on earth, we should be doing everything we can to save our mother. Not all is our fault, most of these events are natural, but their is so much that we should and can fix. If we can not help fix, then we are an enemy, a blight to our earth, fatherless loveless bastard children, and she will deal with us accordingly. Watch and listen to the signs.

It is still being studied on multiple fronts. There is no honest answer yet and anyone that says they know for a fact has a separate agenda they are pushing.

reply to post by superman2012


How much ice melting in land would actually make a significant impact on global sea levels? I am curious what figure you will come up with

Yes.
Increasing sources and access to information, in particular the internet.
That, and increasing population.

Sea level? From your own source:

Using these datasets it is estimated that around 30% of the observed rate of rise over the satellite altimeter time period is due to ocean thermal expansion and 55% results from accumulated melting land ice. There is evidence that the land ice melt contribution has increased significantly over the past five years.

www.skepticalscience.com...

reply to post by Phage


Yes i read that, but theoretically it doesn't make sense. there is no evidence that melted ice has increased sea levels, it is just postulations. If they had a figure of how much melted inland ice could have that impact. It is just not feasable.

The oceans contain 97.2% of 71% of earths water. I would be interested to know how much melted ice would significantly cause an increase in sea levels of 1.338 billion km3 volume of water

I thought that a lot of temperature data was manipulated to further the global warming agenda

Also, in regards to rising sea levels....the beach is exactly where it was when I was a kid

Originally posted by BadBoYeed
I thought that a lot of temperature data was manipulated to further the global warming agenda

Also, in regards to rising sea levels....the beach is exactly where it was when I was a kid

Actually the global warming data was manipulated to show changes in climate change. They are two different things. Global warming isn't debated but it's affect on climate change very much is.

If all the ice melts sea levels will rise between 1 and 3 meters I believe. That may not sound like much but it will be devastating to coastal regions. Those numbers may be off some as I haven't looked it up.

There are any number of debatable reasons for the rising in global temps.

The growing number of sink holes is pretty easily explained though.

A large majority of sink holes are caused by damaged sewer, storm water and drinking water pipes. With the advent of modern civilisation touching nearly every corner of the globe, so have underground plumbing systems.

As they get old, they are often left in a neglected state(out of sight, out of mind) and subsequently are prone to failure.

Once the pipes start to leak they quickly erode the earth around them and eventually leave a void which in turn ends up causing a sinkhole.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by LiveEquation

 

Seal levels are rising, now the question is: are they rising due to an increase in temperature or something else. The sea levels cannot rise due to melting ice since ice has more volume than water (i.e it expands) hence melted ice would theoretically have less volume.

Are you saying that ice melting off of land and pouring into the oceans will not raise the sea levels?

Even if iceburgs are melting, the part above the water would contribute to more water being in the oceans. Not to mention it would also contribute to the desalinization of the oceans.

Actually the ice will only displace its equivalent mass of water that it floats in.

So melting icebergs will not cause the sea levels to rise at all.

This means that we can write-off any rise in sea-levels from the Arctic ice cap if it were to melt entirely.

Antarctica however is an island so any melt run-off will cause a rise in the mean sea-level.

I cant say to the melting ice caps, I can only go by what data I am "told". All I know is I am "told" we are destroying polar bears and penguins because of rising temperatures. Then I go on vacation to Orlando, Florida and there are polar bears and penguins in 99 degree heat in a zoo running around doing fine. But then in the winter time, I see a rare freeze warning for the Everglades and I dont hear anything about saving the alligators and snakes.

As far as the temp thing, one thing to consider. As the population around the world grows, alot of the auto recording stations are put in urban areas. These tend to be areas that have higher temperatures and the official recording station. I can attest to one that I physically observed on numerous times. It was moved to a metro area of 1 million people. Was the county's only official recording station. You drove 10 miles west from it and it was usually between 2-4 degrees cooler.

reply to post by LiveEquation

Originally posted by LiveEquation
- Volcano activity up
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e894bbcd0bc.jpeg[/atsimg]

From your very own source.

Has volcanic activity been increasing?

We don't think so.

A look at the number of volcanoes active per year, over the last few centuries, shows a dramatic increase, but one that is closely related to increases in the world's human population and communication. We believe that this represents an increased reporting of eruptions, rather than increased frequency of global volcanism: more observers, in wider geographic distribution, with better communication, and broader publication.

How can you possibly say that volcanic activity is up, when the very source you uses does not agree with this claim. You can see that the graph for large eruptions show little or no increasing trend, so it's only smaller eruptions that are being reported more. More observations, means more eruptions are reported.

Cherry picking information to try prove a point doesn't help your cause, and can diminish the credibility of your claims. It's good to be researching, just not twisting the claims to suit an agenda.

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by superman2012

 

How much ice melting in land would actually make a significant impact on global sea levels? I am curious what figure you will come up with

edit on 10-7-2011 by LiveEquation because: global

I don't have exact figures, but, using common sense we can see that if the glaciers inland, iceburgs, arctic, and antarctica all melted, it would raise the water level quite a bit no? Correct me if I am wrong, but, according to grade 5 science most of the ice that would melt inland, wouldn't matter right away to the oceans, but, once it is introduced into the hydrologic cycle, it would start to raise the levels.

Link to Hydrologic Cycle diagram.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by LiveEquation

 

Seal levels are rising, now the question is: are they rising due to an increase in temperature or something else. The sea levels cannot rise due to melting ice since ice has more volume than water (i.e it expands) hence melted ice would theoretically have less volume.

Are you saying that ice melting off of land and pouring into the oceans will not raise the sea levels?

Even if iceburgs are melting, the part above the water would contribute to more water being in the oceans. Not to mention it would also contribute to the desalinization of the oceans.

Actually the ice will only displace its equivalent mass of water that it floats in.

So melting icebergs will not cause the sea levels to rise at all.

This means that we can write-off any rise in sea-levels from the Arctic ice cap if it were to melt entirely.

Antarctica however is an island so any melt run-off will cause a rise in the mean sea-level.

So even though a portion of it is NOT displacing the water that it floats in, that in no way will cause more water to be introduced? I am by no means saying that it would cause a massive amount...but any amount is more than none. I am sure thermal expansion would cause a higher rise than icebergs melting...but they do contribute.

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by BadBoYeed
I thought that a lot of temperature data was manipulated to further the global warming agenda

Also, in regards to rising sea levels....the beach is exactly where it was when I was a kid

Actually the global warming data was manipulated to show changes in climate change. They are two different things. Global warming isn't debated but it's affect on climate change very much is.

If all the ice melts sea levels will rise between 1 and 3 meters I believe. That may not sound like much but it will be devastating to coastal regions. Those numbers may be off some as I haven't looked it up.

The third process that can cause sea level to rise is the loss of ice mass from Greenland and Antarctica. Were all the ice on Greenland to melt, a process that would likely take many centuries to millennia, sea level would go up by roughly 7 meters. The West Antarctic ice sheet holds about 5 m of sea level equivalent and is particularly vulnerable as much of it is grounded below sea level; the East Antarctic ice sheet, which is less vulnerable, holds about 55 m of sea level equivalent.

From this link.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


I did read the article, and they do not disagree with me. The first chart and the second chart are not the same. Plus they do not take into considerations volcano's on the sea floor. Overall there is increased volcanic activity despite the fact that it is not life threatening yet...Just because we haven't had a catastrophe by volcanic activity doesn't mean that volcanic activity is not on the rise

here is another interesting graph for increased cloud cover over the years.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a52d1ed6c840.jpg[/atsimg]

source1

This paper below discusses how cloud cover can affect weather source2

reply to post by LiveEquation

Originally posted by LiveEquation
I did read the article, and they do not disagree with me.

They say they don't think volcanic activity is increasing. You say it is. That would be classified as a disagreement. I honestly don't know how you could think otherwise. :puz

Originally posted by LiveEquation
The first chart and the second chart are not the same. Plus they do not take into considerations volcano's on the sea floor. Overall there is increased volcanic activity despite the fact that it is not life threatening yet

Of course they are different. The article explains this, and I commented on the difference in my previous post. The authors explain why there is in upward trend in the statistics for all eruptions, which is why I quoted it. However the records for large eruptions, stays relatively constant. This is also explained in the article.

Additional strong evidence that the historical increase in global volcanism is more apparent than real comes from the lower plot below. Here only the larger eruptions (generating at least 0.1 km3 of tephra, the fragmental products of explosive eruptions) are plotted. The effects of these larger events are often regional, and therefore less likely to escape documentation even in remote areas. The frequency of these events has remained impressively constant for more than a century, and contrasts strongly with the apparent increase of smaller eruptions with time.

So to sum up what they are saying, larger eruptions are more likely to get reported, even in the past with less communication and documentation. Therefore, the records for those are better for establishing trends. The trend is not for increased activity. The authors distinctly explain the main reason for an increase in reporting of all eruptions.

Better reporting of eruptions does not equal more eruptions. This is what the article states, which is definitely in disagreement with your claims. Do you have any other sources that actually show an increased activity, or are you just misreading the article you sourced?

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
There are any number of debatable reasons for the rising in global temps.

The growing number of sink holes is pretty easily explained though.

A large majority of sink holes are caused by damaged sewer, storm water and drinking water pipes. With the advent of modern civilisation touching nearly every corner of the globe, so have underground plumbing systems.

As they get old, they are often left in a neglected state(out of sight, out of mind) and subsequently are prone to failure.

Once the pipes start to leak they quickly erode the earth around them and eventually leave a void which in turn ends up causing a sinkhole.

For a pipe to cause a sinkhole it would have to go unchecked for quite some time. If this is the case, most water plant operators will notice a spike in the amount of water going out of the water plant, not to mention a lowering of water pressure in the pipes. I can see your point if it is a little leak, or a poorly managed infrastructure, but, this cannot account for all the sinkholes. What about the one on the Australian beach?

reply to post by superman2012


Ice is 9% less dense than water. If you have 1.09 m^3 of ice, with a mass of 1 metric ton, this will melt to give about 1 m^3 of water, also weighing a metric ton. However, if you have 1.09 m^3 of ice floating in water, only 1 m^3 of it will be submerged... the remaining 9% will protrude from the water. This means that only 1 m^3 of water has been displaced. Then, if the 1.09 m^3 of ice melts, it will turn into 1 m^3 of water, which will fill the void perfectly, and will lead to no net increase in water level.

The melting of ice already in the ocean will not contribute to rising sea levels.