Alternative theory for Sea levels rising

The rise in sea levels is generally atributed to global warming, which is a hotly disputed area and has alot of nay sayers.

My theory however, although it may seem a bit 'out there' but surely would have an impact on sea levels and it is bottled water



You may be thinking wtf, but if you think about it. These companys get their water from under ground springs (separate from the oceans) then we come along and buy approximately 50bn bottles of spring water per year drink it and piss it out into to the sewage system which ultimately ends up being pumped back into the sea.

Now I know it may seem insignificant in comparison to the huge scale of the sea, but surely it must start adding up? After all we are introducing new water to the oceans, how many liters would 50bn bottles actualy contain? And thats year on year.

sorry to break it to you...

Most bottle water is re filtered tap water, and sometimes not even the filtered part.

what if the sea levels are not rising, but instead the ground level is sinking?


peace.

Are you kidding or do you really know nothing about the earth's natural cycles.
Might want to learn some natural science there Sparky.Try learning about the water cycle and figure out how the planet recycles water. where do you think the spring water comes from magic?

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard

Interesting idea. However, considering that spring water is replenished by rainfall that percolates down through the various rock layers, and that rainfall ultimately is part of the hydological cycle that includes the oceans, then spring water itself is already "in the mix" in relation to sea levels anyway.

But leaving that point aside, even if we took a hypothetical figure of 100 billion bottles of spring water a year it's still not a large volume of water in comparison to the oceans themselves. If we had 100 billion bottles and they were (say) 10 litres each, it would still only amount to 100,000,000,000 x 10 = 1,000,000,000,000 litres. And that's how much water there is in just one cubic kilometer (cu. km.).

The world's oceans have a water volume of about 1,335,000,000 cu. km. (Refer to NOAA here for more details.) So an addition of 1 cu. km. to the oceans would make less than a one-thirteen-millionth of one percent difference to the total and so it wouldn't really affect the levels to any amount we could even realistically measure.

All the same, I like your thinking, because at least you are looking at alternatives.

I'd tend to agree with what another poster said about the land (sea floor) possibly getting lower in some places. In fact this does happen, especially in relation to islands that sit on or near subduction zones. This is why we hear of some islands in the Pacific where the people have to move because the "sea level is rising", while people other islands just a couple of hundred km away have no such problems. The reason is because the sea ain't rising very much, but the islands can rise and fall as a result of tectonic forces.

Regards,

Mike

Originally posted by JustMike
reply to post by Idonthaveabeard

 

Interesting idea. However, considering that spring water is replenished by rainfall that percolates down through the various rock layers, and that rainfall ultimately is part of the hydological cycle that includes the oceans, then spring water itself is already "in the mix" in relation to sea levels anyway.

But leaving that point aside, even if we took a hypothetical figure of 100 billion bottles of spring water a year it's still not a large volume of water in comparison to the oceans themselves. If we had 100 billion bottles and they were (say) 10 litres each, it would still only amount to 100,000,000,000 x 10 = 1,000,000,000,000 litres. And that's how much water there is in just one cubic kilometer (cu. km.).

The world's oceans have a water volume of about 1,335,000,000 cu. km. (Refer to NOAA here for more details.) So an addition of 1 cu. km. to the oceans would make less than a one-thirteen-millionth of one percent difference to the total and so it wouldn't really affect the levels to any amount we could even realistically measure.

All the same, I like your thinking, because at least you are looking at alternatives.

I'd tend to agree with what another poster said about the land (sea floor) possibly getting lower in some places. In fact this does happen, especially in relation to islands that sit on or near subduction zones. This is why we hear of some islands in the Pacific where the people have to move because the "sea level is rising", while people other islands just a couple of hundred km away have no such problems. The reason is because the sea ain't rising very much, but the islands can rise and fall as a result of tectonic forces.

Regards,

Mike

edit on 22/7/12 by JustMike because: (no reason given)

but if the sea floor got lower, the ocean level would go down, not up. It would have to be the land mass above or at sea level that got lower in order for the level to appear to rise.

It's still global warming and the melting of the ice caps, there's plenty of evidence to show that they have been receeding significantly and since they were ice and are now liquid and that change in state comes from melting, which is caused by heat, global warming is happening. ... no matter what faux news says

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Hi PurpleChiten,

almost didn't recognize you for a moment there with your latest avatar. Nice one!

Anyway, back OT: as I said, if there is an island (or any seas-side land mass) in a subduction zone then it could go lower and so it would appear that the sea level had risen. But these zones are relatively localized and it doesn't mean the whole ocean floor gets lower.

For example, after the great quake in Japan last year, some coastal regions were uplifted and others subsided, in some places up to 2 metres. There are now inhabited areas by the Japanese coast where the people's homes are getting flooded twice a day at high tide because of that subsidence. Before the quake, those same homes were above sea level even at high tide. But that doesn't mean the sea level has risen permanently by 2 metres throughout the whole ocean. In those subsided places it effectively has (which is why they get flooded every day), but it's a local phenomenon, but the true MSL is virtually unchanged.

Trouble is, these changes in subduction zones don't have to occur all in one huge lurch as they did in Japan. In fact, even there, the places that subsided in March 2011 with quake had been slowly uplifted over several hundred years since the last quake and have now gone back to about where they were. Same goes with various islands that are at this time "sinking". In the event of a major quake they might be uplifted again.

Please note that I'm not saying that there are no rises in sea level occurring. I'm just making the point that apparent sea level changes do not have to be due to true, ocean-wide changes but can be due to more local, often tectonic, factors.

Mike

According to an article in Climate Depot, sea levels have remained the same for the last ten years.
As regards bottled water, it gets replaced by rain, which trickles down into the aquifers where the bottled water come from (allegedly), there is more rain that bottled water, which is why most rivers/lakes are usually full.

reply to post by JustMike


We're having weekly "themes" so I'm making my avatar match the theme while keeping the lil purple bird

I see what you're saying... the subduction zone "sinking" so to speak.

My line of thought was with the sea floor as with the marianas trench. If there was a sink of the sea floor, such as a deepening of the trench or another trench forming, the water would fill that trench making it seem lower to those of us above normal sea level.

Very interesting stuff!

Originally posted by pikestaff
According to an article in Climate Depot, sea levels have remained the same for the last ten years.
As regards bottled water, it gets replaced by rain, which trickles down into the aquifers where the bottled water come from (allegedly), there is more rain that bottled water, which is why most rivers/lakes are usually full.

Please provide the article as I have a bit of trouble accepting that and would need the proof.

Also, I'm not familiar with "Climate Depot" and will have to investigate its validity.

Many very credible sources show the sea level is rising, some even say exponentially.

ETA: just found out what "Climate Depot" is.... not credible in any way, shape or form. It's a subsidiary of CFACT, a right wing fake "news" organization closely related to faux news that's trying to dumb down America.
Sorry, but I only accept credible sources with the data to back them up in cases such as this. If you'd like to state that it's your opinion and their opinion, fine, but there's nothing factual about them nor are they considered credible. Not an attack on you, only on the merit, or lack thereof, of that site.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


There is absolutely tons of scientific evidence that sea levels are certainly not rising, and could actually be falling at the moment.

Just do a google search and it will all be available to you.

Tip 1: Stop listening to the paid agw propogandists.

Tip 2: Go down to your nearest shore and see if the water is (on average) any higher than it was 10 years ago

Tip 3: Stop listening to the paid agw propogandists.

I live on Lake Michigan and my neioghbor thinks global warming is taking water away . I tried to explain the whole Chicago river and dams and such but she thinks it's evaporating away because of the heat. Crazy woman but entertaining anyway