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.

 

Is there an explanation for these events?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
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.


Assuming you are correct, I stand corrected.
haha

But the entire argument is irrelevant! You need to ask where those icebergs are coming from. If they are coming from frozen seawater on the North Pole, then yes, they have always been floating and their melting will not contribute to rising sea levels. But if they are coming from glaciers off of Greenland or Antarctica, they were never in the water to begin with and they do significantly contribute to sea level rise. Once they're in the water, their melting does nothing, though. It's their falling into the water that makes the sea levels rise.
edit on 11-7-2011 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2011 by superman2012 because: edit to add: got the bottom quote from some random guy on yahoo answers. Thought it fit good.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Assuming an iceberg broke from a glacier entirely on land, then, yes, it will cause the sea-level to rise. Negligibly. Tens of thousands of icebergs form each year, so, if all of these were out of the water to begin with, then they would eventually cause a miniscule rise in the sea-level, after many years.
However, the vast majority of icebergs are formed from glacial ice that has crept into the ocean. It`s at this point that they break off to form icebergs. I'd actually love for one of us to track down just a single known example of an iceberg breaking off of a glacier not already in the water. But, even if a few have formed in such a way, how much of a sea-level rise are those few examples really going to produce?

The bulk of the rise in the sea-level is a result of glacial melting. If anything, we might be able to attribute icebergs to a few millimeter rise over several decades. But, then, that's the definition of "negligible".



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

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?


I didn't say it accounted for "all" of the sinkholes. If you go back and read my post I stated that plumbing problems account for a "large majority".



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
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.

If a leak occurs in a sewerage pipe, or a storm water drain, it will not be metered, and therefore will go unnoticed. This has happened before and caused sinkholes. We can expect to see more of these as our sewer systems age.


Originally posted by superman2012
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?
The area around the one at the Australian beach has had similiar events in the past. However, if there wasn't a video of it occuring, chances are you would never have heard about it. See how increased technology and comunication can lead to an increase in reports of situations, without necessarily being an actual increase in the events? Of course sink holes have always happened naturally, but they would never have been reported on quite as much as they are now.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 





If a leak occurs in a sewerage pipe, or a storm water drain, it will not be metered, and therefore will go unnoticed. This has happened before and caused sinkholes. We can expect to see more of these as our sewer systems age.


They wouldn't have the necessary pressure to cause water leakage to that degree. It would take a LONG time for that to happen and the most likely scenario is the pipe collapsing and sewer backup in your house...not a sink hole. Not saying it isn't possible, just not as likely.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by superman2012

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?


I didn't say it accounted for "all" of the sinkholes. If you go back and read my post I stated that plumbing problems account for a "large majority".


How big of a majority? Sources? What proof do they have once a sinkhole forms? They can't really backtrack a leak that erodes earth can they?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

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


Seems to be the typical programmed (debunker) response to those who insist climate changes are increasing.

While what you are saying is certainly true (about improved data collection capabilities), it does not automatically negate the possibility - nay, probability (likelihood) - that the conditions around the globe have, in fact, dramatically changed.

The answer lies somewhere in between. But, For your reference.

edit on 7/12/2011 by SquirrelNutz because: Linkage added for reference



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


You will forgive me for taking so long to respond...I just got back from DC and it was a painful drive. I read that you asked for more sources...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f38297908095.gif[/atsimg]

(I also provided a link to research that sheds light on correlation between seismicity and volcanic activity)

The trend is up. My understanding is that volcanic activity is 'quasi' seismic activity and "quasi" tectonic plate movement.

One of the figures i showed earlier depicted an increase in seismic events...thus it should not be a surprise that volcanic activity has gone up. Another piece of the puzzle is that the north pole has also shifted drastically this century.

the source is at
news.nationalgeographic.com...



North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
==========================================
New research shows the pole moving at rapid clip—25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

At its current rate the pole could move to Siberia within the next half-century, Stoner said.

"It's moving really fast," he said. "We're seeing something that hasn't happened for at least 500 years."



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


You will forgive me for taking so long to respond...I just got back from DC and it was a painful drive. I read that you asked for more sources...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f38297908095.gif[/atsimg]
Forgiven
So I hope you can forgive me for taking long to respond, I must have missed this. Correct, I asked for a source which agreed with the claims you were making. Yet this shows exactly the same thing as the previous source. An increase in the reporting of volcanic eruptions. As your previous source stated, this does not mean an increase in volcanic activity. I elaborated on the reasons for this in my previous posts. You claim to be reading the articles, but I'm not sure if you're not comprehending them, or just ignoring the bits that don't agree with you.


Originally posted by LiveEquation
(I also provided a link to research that sheds light on correlation between seismicity and volcanic activity)

The trend is up. My understanding is that volcanic activity is 'quasi' seismic activity and "quasi" tectonic plate movement.

One of the figures i showed earlier depicted an increase in seismic events...thus it should not be a surprise that volcanic activity has gone up.

I can definitely see how seismicity and volcanic activity are related. It is fairly well known that seismic activity is a potential indicator of an impending eruption. But much like volcanic activity, there is a well known reason for an increase in the reporting of seismic events.


The USGS estimates that several million earthquakes occur in the world each year. Many go undetected because they hit remote areas or have very small magnitudes. The NEIC now locates about 50 earthquakes each day, or about 20,000 a year.

As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant.
USGS
Therefore, much like volcanoes, earthquake detection has increased dramatically in the last 100 years. Thus, when identifying trends in statistical data, this must be taken into account. You do not seem to be acknowledging this at all, and are saying that in increase in reporting is directly proportional to an increase in events, which is where the experts disagree with you.

If you look at the larger quakes, which can be better relied upon for inferring trends, the trend has been relatively constant, much like volcanic activity.


Originally posted by LiveEquation
Another piece of the puzzle is that the north pole has also shifted drastically this century.

the source is at
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Yet you didn't quote this part of the article. I've bolded the quote from Stoner himself, as I must say I agree with him, based on many of the posts on this site.

Not a Reversal

The shift is likely a normal oscillation of the Earth's magnetic field, Stoner said, and not the beginning of a flip-flop of the north and south magnetic poles, a phenomenon that last occurred 780,000 years ago.

Such reversals have taken place 400 times in the last 330 million years, according to magnetic clues sealed in rocks around the world. Each reversal takes a thousand years or more to complete.

"People like to think something special is happening in their lifetimes, but despite the dramatic changes, I don't see any evidence of it," Stoner said. "It's probably just a normal wandering of the pole."







 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join