Forecast for big sea level rise ( BBC )

Gavin Gait
16th April 2008, 01:07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7349236.stm

treeve
16th April 2008, 01:22
This has been forecast since the 1950s and all the time now we have computers to actually work it out and we get report after report, but the question remains, what can and is anyone in high position and power (political and financial) prepared to do about it. Weather, atmosphere and sea, knows no boundaries. We are in it together. My only reserve is that (as far as I am aware) none of these computer models takes into account the rising temperature, the weather changes as a result of these massive movements of cold water and air, and the effects of temperature driven evaporation and air saturation. That is as dramatic as any sea level rise, as winds and sea currents will also change. Best of Luck ... to all of us, Raymond

Coastie
16th April 2008, 03:11
By the end of the century? Hmm, don't think it wil bother me somehow!!

UmbornePirate
16th April 2008, 09:50
The BBC item states:
The latest satellite data indicates that the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass, though the much bigger East Antarctic sheet may be gaining mass.

(The underline in the above quote is mine.)

If the satellite data is capable of positively identifying that the Greenland & West Antarctic sheets are losing mass why is it not capable of measuring an increase in the East Antartic. Is it not programmed to recognise negative data? Or do the scientists not want to threaten their sources of funding? Or do the media not want to bring us good news?

Pirate

Gavin Gait
16th April 2008, 11:41
The "Scientists" were forced to admit that over the last 10 years there has been NO overall average increase in world temperatures and that we may actually be cooling down slightly. That got buried pretty damn quick as that would show that their attempt to put ALL the blame on mankind is just hot air. Sure the planet heats up and cools down , thats called nature...

There is enough scientific data going back hundreds of thousands of years ( using the samples from the Ice cores in Greenland ) that shows that there is a 100-150 year delay between the planet warming and an increase in CO2 , not the increase in CO2 then the planet warming up.

I think we need a thermostat on that big planet heater we occasionally see in Scotland... the SUN lol

surfaceblow
16th April 2008, 16:19
I just finished reading "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery the premise of the book is the earth is on a 1,500 year climate cycle. The book also points to the rise in temperature than the rise in CO2. On the sea level rise "the most likely rate of sea level is 10.16 to 15.24 cm, the same rate of increase in recent centuries".
You Tube has a copy of Unstoppable Solar Cycles The Real Story of Greenland which is a 10 minute video produced by The Idea Channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_2bP9n3R0

JohnMac068
16th April 2008, 16:26
When the ice in my G & T melts, the glass does'nt overflow !!!!

treeve
16th April 2008, 17:14
Thanks Davie for that balancing fact ... I remember as part if the interest during the fifties, there were discussions on cycles of the solar system and of earth's climate, and they all tallied, and it was clear when we got the facts underlined from bristlecone pines and carbon dating, as well as ice cores, that we have been here before ... Deja Vu, oh yes, done it before, mate.

Santos
16th April 2008, 21:20
When the ice in my G & T melts, the glass does'nt overflow !!!!

Mine dosnt get a chance to melt (Jester)

Chris

Steve Woodward
16th April 2008, 21:45
Whats the panic, there'll just be more water to sail on

JimC
16th April 2008, 22:29
This has been forecast since the 1950s and all the time now we have computers to actually work it out and we get report after report, but the question remains, what can and is anyone in high position and power (political and financial) prepared to do about it. Weather, atmosphere and sea, knows no boundaries. We are in it together. My only reserve is that (as far as I am aware) none of these computer models takes into account the rising temperature, the weather changes as a result of these massive movements of cold water and air, and the effects of temperature driven evaporation and air saturation. That is as dramatic as any sea level rise, as winds and sea currents will also change. Best of Luck ... to all of us, Raymond

No wonder there's so much confusion over all of this.
There may not be too many who remember the winter 0f 1947 but I'm sure there are not a few who remember 1953. That year I clearly remember being in the locks at Antwerp and watching the sea rising over the gates - filling the locks the cascading over the edge of the dock and down into the houses which were below sea level at that point. On the other side of the channel there was horrendous tradgedy and loss of life on the same night.
In 1991 the same thing happened - but we were better prepared for it. At that time I wrote to the Admiralty Hydrographic Office and asked them why this happened and what were their predictions. They sent me the usual meteorological and UK waters tidal surge data. I already had this info and was using it in my work. However they also gave some very useful predictions concerning the alignment of the sun, moon and planets and moon declination calculations which showed that similar conditions would take place at roughly eleven year intervals.
As you know atmosperic pressure has a great deal to do with it as well but no-one can predict the pressure distribution so far ahead.
For the uninitiated: tides will rise well above the HAT (Highest Expected tide) if the sun and moon and to a lesser extent the planets are in such a position relative to each other and the earth that their individual gravitational pulls will combine to exert an extremely strong influence on the water in the oceans and seas. If when this occurs, the moon's declination is also at a certain value - extremely high tides will occurr. If, at the same time,there is a very deep low in an area, this will produce high winds which produce a storm surge which can increase wave height as much as 2 meters. Put the foregoing together and you have tides 'to die for'. This added to a rise in global temperature gives you have a recipe for disaster. However Newtons first law applies here as well as anywhere else and there are many out there who predict that the oposite will happen.
You're spot on Raymond. Politicians, Industrialist and the like are blowing steam from their nether regions! They and lots of people like them have a very high opnion of mankind if they think they can influence the power of nature. Think of Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, the tsunami of a few years ago etc.
We sent huge amounts of gasses, heat an dust and lots more into the atmosphere during the two WWs and the Industrial revolution - what was the result of all that? Even now man's puny predictions are given a wobbly when El Nino and El Nina decide to take a sabatical.
The criminal bit here is when certain politicians make mileage out of the situation by taking unilateral actions which cost the taxpayers money and will not give them(the taxpayer) a return in investment in any shape or form.
'Pour me another drink - no ice please and peel me a grape'.

John Williams 56-65
16th April 2008, 22:34
The ice in your drink is already floating in the liquid. Therefore it is already displacing its volume of water and makes no difference to the level in the glass when it melts. It doesn`t matter if all the sea ice in the world melts it will make no difference to world sea levels. However if all the ice on land ,such as the Greenland ice cap were to melt. Look Out.
Incidentally we are still emerging from the last ice age which only started to clear the British Isles some 10/11000 years ago and was not the only ice Age the world has known. Our climate fluctuates between ice age and hot desert over thousands of years and this is just another part of the cycle. Very little to do with CO2 emissions. Mans efforts at adding to the worlds CO2 levels is puny compared to that added to the atmosphere by volcanic activity over the centuries.

JimC
17th April 2008, 14:15
The ice in your drink is already floating in the liquid. Therefore it is already displacing its volume of water and makes no difference to the level in the glass when it melts. It doesn`t matter if all the sea ice in the world melts it will make no difference to world sea levels. However if all the ice on land ,such as the Greenland ice cap were to melt. Look Out.
Incidentally we are still emerging from the last ice age which only started to clear the British Isles some 10/11000 years ago and was not the only ice Age the world has known. Our climate fluctuates between ice age and hot desert over thousands of years and this is just another part of the cycle. Very little to do with CO2 emissions. Mans efforts at adding to the worlds CO2 levels is puny compared to that added to the atmosphere by volcanic activity over the centuries.

Much of what you say John is probably true. Indeed in Tudor times there was such a mini-ice age fluctuation. However in the matter of floating ice volumes - its displacement - and the principal of that Greek chappie - you must also consider the underwater volume + volume in air - the specific gravity of the ice relative to it's surroundings as well as any trapped air and other 'bits' - all very interesting 'but very shtoopeed' as the wee guy wearing the WW2 german helmet in The Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in Show used to remark.

JohnMac068
17th April 2008, 16:03
The thread so far has been very interesting, and I hope the debate goes on. The thing that everyone has to agree on, is which side is right. We have scientists forecasting all kinds of dire happenings, caused by "global warming" and CO2 emissions, then you have other scientists insisting that it is only a natural re-occurring cycle. Who is right ?? Meantime various politicians are jumping on the bandwaggon, and making it an excuse to tax everything and everyone in sight. Global warming ! after this last week's weather in the UK, it is more like the start of the next ice age !! We are all dying for it to warm up.

JimC
17th April 2008, 18:46
The thread so far has been very interesting, and I hope the debate goes on. The thing that everyone has to agree on, is which side is right. We have scientists forecasting all kinds of dire happenings, caused by "global warming" and CO2 emissions, then you have other scientists insisting that it is only a natural re-occurring cycle. Who is right ?? Meantime various politicians are jumping on the bandwaggon, and making it an excuse to tax everything and everyone in sight. Global warming ! after this last week's weather in the UK, it is more like the start of the next ice age !! We are all dying for it to warm up.

I agree. This CO2 thing is a bit of a mystery. In 1972, BOC marketed an LPG conversion kit for petrol driven cars. They were selling LPG like hot cakes for all sorts of things. Principal sales pitch was that CO2 was the wonder gas. Being the major exhaust gas from the combustion of propane or butane; it was clean, almost carbon free - no clogging deposits in the exhaust ports of IC engines and further more the exhaust gas was a 'Greenhouse Gas' which, when vented into greenhouses accelerated the growth of commercially grown products. A further horticultural bonus was that it's flame gave off ultra violet emissions which are beneficial to the growth of seedlings. Indeed, BOC and the industrial gas industry so loved CO2 that they were buying up the huge surplus amounts of it which is produced as a by-product of the Brewing and Distilling Industries. They then sold it neat as a shielding gas for automatic and semi-automatic welding process or mixed with Argon for the same thing.
The ice crystals of dry CO2 were used as the abrasive in a shot blasting process. It was also sold for a time as a blanketing gas in freezing processes and as a fire extinguisher. Both the last two were stopped for obvious safety reasons. The car bit did well until the government who had promised not to tax it did so.
Today, LPG is still marketed as 'Autogas' in the UK with the blessing of the present government. It still produces CO2 (but slightly less per volume than petrol). The present Government still push it as an alternative to petrol and have not yet dared to increase the tax for that purpose. Goodness knows what's happening with all the other processes I have mentioned and I have a few suspicions about what goes 'hiss' when you open a 'cool one'.
I know that this CO2 /ozone layer thing is scientific fact. However it is a component in scientific investigations and these never end. The big problems seems that lay people, politicians and the press are using it for all sorts of ends

ajblack
17th April 2008, 22:42
The ice in your drink is already floating in the liquid. Therefore it is already displacing its volume of water and makes no difference to the level in the glass when it melts. It doesn`t matter if all the sea ice in the world melts it will make no difference to world sea levels. However if all the ice on land ,such as the Greenland ice cap were to melt. Look Out.
Incidentally we are still emerging from the last ice age which only started to clear the British Isles some 10/11000 years ago and was not the only ice Age the world has known. Our climate fluctuates between ice age and hot desert over thousands of years and this is just another part of the cycle. Very little to do with CO2 emissions. Mans efforts at adding to the worlds CO2 levels is puny compared to that added to the atmosphere by volcanic activity over the centuries.

Got to agree on a lot of the sentiment here... But isn't there more ships and boats in the water now than ever before? By more I mean total displacement now. Maybe fewer ships, but larger..... so do we suggest that the world's governments remove all vessels from the sea and that will help to reduce the sea level???????????(Jester)

Seriously though, I have my reservations about this 'green' issue. I have been brought up.. 'waste not, want not' no point in dumping stuff for the sake of it. I guess if man would be responsible and use what they have to satisfy their need and not fuel their greed it may change things.

Once you get a government all interested in an industry/issue you just gotta be cynical about their motives... Started with the industrial revolution, then a few years ago it was support of cars... now the boil is off that and then we had the dotcom era. That bubble burst and now the government is onto taxing gas... Are they trying to 'create' an industry to cover their screwups and generate revenue seeing they have taxed the rest of industry into the ground???? or am I really too deep in cynicism??

What goes round, come round. The world does it every 24hrs....... and we all have heard the saying 'there is nothing new under the sun' I believe it is a cycle.... that's my tuppence worth

John Williams 56-65
18th April 2008, 22:49
Jim ;We dont need to go back to the middle ages to talk about ice ages. As recently as the 19th century we had what is known as the Little Ice Age, when ice fairs were held on the frozen Thames. Even as recently as the winter of 62/63 the sea off the south coast started to freeze although that was short lived and was a mere hiccup in the general trend of the British weather patterns. When we talk of global warming we are talking of average world temperatures rising only by a small amount. An average rise of only a couple of degrees. That doesnt sound much but it is enough to precipitate enormous changes in global weather patterns.
As for the air trapped in sea ice it makes no difference at all. What we need to remember is that water like most things reduces in volume as it cools. Until it reaches 4 degrees above its freezing point when it starts to expand again. Lucky for us it does so, as if it didn`t the water would sink and freeze from the bottom up and not the other way around, otherwise our oceans would be frozen solid never to melt again.
The argument about CO2 is one to which I personally don`t subscribe as CO2, or more specifically C or Carbon is an element that has existed since the early years of the earths formation and is an infinate element,or in other words is not without limits and the amount of free carbon is varying all the time. We ourselves are a carbon based life form and when we die our bodies return to carbon as well as a lot of other things of course. The arguments about the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil etc is merely another form of recycling as there is no more carbon on earth now as there has been from the early years of the earths existance. The carbon from the plant life which eventually died and formed our coal and oil reserves has been stored underground for millions of years till man extracted it and started burning it thus releasing it back into the atmosphere again. Wether this is a contributary factor in the present global warming debate who knows? There are so many other possibilities that could be to blame. One thing is certain. This phenomenon is nothing unusual in the life of the earth. There have been many episodes of the world freezing over at various times and equally times when the earth has been a hot desert. What seems like a long time to us ,is but the blink of an eye in the immensity of time.

John Williams 56-65
18th April 2008, 23:29
A few further thoughts on rising sea levels. I suppose we are all familiar with the White cliffs of Dover. Acc ording to my reading on this matter it seems that all that chalk of which the cliffs are composed were laid down at a time in the worlds life when this country was going through a period of being under water during a time when the higher parts of Britain were experiencing tropical heat. Over an exceptionally long period of time the seas were populated by tiny forms of life no bigger than the full stop at the end of this sentence, that only lived in warm tropical waters, and when they died their bodies sank to the bottom and started accumulating and eventually forming the cliffs we know today. It was due to there being no ice and all the available water was in liquid form. When the earth started freezing over again as it did periodically, sea levels fell and those cliffs emerged above the waves, as the ice accumulated in the polar regions. Who is to say that that cycle is not being repeated again?
In cidentally: one of the best ways of visualising the long periods of time involved is one I came across several years ago.

If we liken the age of the earth from its very beginnings to the present day to one calender year and assume the world came into being at midnight on the 31st December and the first forms of life showed up around August time. Modern man arrived at ten seconds to midnight on the 31st December. One year later.

Bearsie
19th April 2008, 02:37
When the ice in my G & T melts, the glass does'nt overflow !!!!
It gets even better than that!
If you take these folks own rethoric and turn it about then it would stand to reason that more water means more weight on the ocean floor. Since the earth is a thin shelled balloon that would mean the ocean floor would be pushed down by an amount approppiate to the weight added above.
Of course Greenland and the Antarctic would rise too.
Ergo, no rise in level .....

Must be nice to have a job at tax payers expense were you have to do nothing productive whatsoever, ever.... (Cloud)

Greetings, Bearsie.

JimC
19th April 2008, 15:44
Jim ;We dont need to go back to the middle ages to talk about ice ages. As recently as the 19th century we had what is known as the Little Ice Age, when ice fairs were held on the frozen Thames. Even as recently as the winter of 62/63 the sea off the south coast started to freeze although that was short lived and was a mere hiccup in the general trend of the British weather patterns. When we talk of global warming we are talking of average world temperatures rising only by a small amount. An average rise of only a couple of degrees. That doesnt sound much but it is enough to precipitate enormous changes in global weather patterns.
As for the air trapped in sea ice it makes no difference at all. What we need to remember is that water like most things reduces in volume as it cools. Until it reaches 4 degrees above its freezing point when it starts to expand again. Lucky for us it does so, as if it didn`t the water would sink and freeze from the bottom up and not the other way around, otherwise our oceans would be frozen solid never to melt again.
The argument about CO2 is one to which I personally don`t subscribe as CO2, or more specifically C or Carbon is an element that has existed since the early years of the earths formation and is an infinate element,or in other words is not without limits and the amount of free carbon is varying all the time. We ourselves are a carbon based life form and when we die our bodies return to carbon as well as a lot of other things of course. The arguments about the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil etc is merely another form of recycling as there is no more carbon on earth now as there has been from the early years of the earths existance. The carbon from the plant life which eventually died and formed our coal and oil reserves has been stored underground for millions of years till man extracted it and started burning it thus releasing it back into the atmosphere again. Wether this is a contributary factor in the present global warming debate who knows? There are so many other possibilities that could be to blame. One thing is certain. This phenomenon is nothing unusual in the life of the earth. There have been many episodes of the world freezing over at various times and equally times when the earth has been a hot desert. What seems like a long time to us ,is but the blink of an eye in the immensity of time.

John,

I have no problem with the carbon life forms and re-cycling of a finite quantity of elements. But surely it's the combination of these elements to form compounds which can create problems as well as benefits? Carbon dioxide is, as it says on the label - 1pt carbon + 2 pts oxygen and is therefore a gas at ambient temperature. It's combination with other elements to form complex molecules is in most cases benificial. However the fact that it rises (with it;s carbon element) along with other lighter-than-air gases- can entrain impurities and is contained- without release within our atmoshere can cause problems as is the problem with the ozone layer. None of the foregoing in itself is a great problem. It is when mankind upsets the natural balance of the elements which have created the world as we've known it until recently in the history of mankind, that things go pear-shaped. Surely the artificial creation of great amounts Carbon Dioxide means more carbon is used up in creating this compound which would otherwise have maintained the carbon balance of our exisiting world? I suspect the global warming theory is only the , dare I say it? 'tip of the iceberg'! It is ironic that water, the compound we're so concerned about, has no carbon whatsoever.
I suppose CO2 is analogous to salt in that it is necessary for a balanced life but too much of it greatly curtails life and extreme amounts will destroy it.

Great thread this!

Jim.

treeve
20th April 2008, 16:04
Interesting point Bearsie, I suspect that the added weight of water could make some adjustments in the pressure upon the plates, and over some considerable period of time, have some effect upon plate drift and elevation of the unloaded areas. Just how much pressure would be required (bearing in mind the alterations to crust thickness and structure that have taken place over millions of years) to crack the crust, or for it to burst, allowing the iron core to pass through? Now, add that to the growing media hype and ill-informed publicity as well as the politically driven "need" to drop CO2 levels, etc. That would be something worthy of an Irwin Allen disaster movie? "The day the Earth's Core shot up through the centre of the Atlantic Ocean, and proved that Atlantis was never there at all, and the atmosphere was burned up and the clouds of ash and water vapour rolled around the world for centuries, but there was no one to see it"... Oh, you mean the scientists have not worked that into their computer model?

John Williams 56-65
20th April 2008, 16:30
Jim; As you say, this is an interesting thread. It reminds me of the many hours I spent sitting on deck in the tropics during the evening with a couple of beers, solving all the worlds problems. We weren`t very successful then either. The world is still in the same mess now as it was then. The difference being the various different subjects under discussion, and the fact that we are a little older and hopefully wiser. The fact that we can discuss those things that interest us, in a similar manner without having to leave our homes to do so, is something we never dreamed of in the fifties and sixties. With modern technology these things are easy. Fifty years ago I couldn`t even play my record player if the weather was at all rough. Nowadays the weather wouldn`t make the slightest difference to listening to recorded music with the equipment available now. The same applies to taking photographs. How I wish the Digital camera was around during my time at sea, I would have taken many more pictures than I did with the old film camera. All those photographic opportunities gone, never to return. Sorry for having gone off thread. A little senior moment I think. I promise my next post will be back on to what is obviously a subject that interests so many of us.

John Williams 56-65
20th April 2008, 21:41
Bearsie and Treeve; Your comments about the weight of water depressing the earths crust is not as far fetched as it at first appears. While I am not too sure about the water depressing the crust there is ample evidence of the weight of ice during the last ice age doing so. Since the ending of the ice age some ten or eleven thousand years ago there are parts of the coast line of Sweden that are now 200 metres plus above the present day high water mark. The evidence is clearly visible to those who know what they are looking at. Iceland too is rising in parts although in other places it is sinking. This phenomenon is known to the scientific fraternity as Glacial Rebound. Considering the time that has elapsed since the melting of the ice [10,000 / 11000 years this rise is almost meteoric.
As for the scenario of the earths core shooting through the earths crust, it is already happening. Well not exactly the earths core as that is too far below the crust for that to happen, but I think you have overlooked the Black Smokers at the Mid Atlantic Ridge. These are places on the ocean bed thousands of feet down where the bed of the Atlantic is being forced apart by upwelling magma from the molten layers beneath the crust. This has the effect of forcing the Atlantic to spread at the rate of approx an inch a year. So on that basis America and Europe is getting further apart by an inch a year. My maths is not too good but I reckon over a million years that would be a few miles,and remember a million years is nothing at all on the scale of things.
It just shows how much of what we are talking about on this thread are interlinking subjects and we can`t treat them in isolation. We have wandered on to the subject of Continental Drift. I think I had better close this post before I get carried too far away.

treeve
21st April 2008, 14:40
Absolutely, John. My point entirely, too many computer models take liitle account of peripheral sciences. Britain itself is recovering from ice age tilt. I have not seen any figures of late which take that into account with all the talk of rising sea levels and coastal erosion; The science which holds our planet and atmosphere together is far reaching and multi-disciplined. I am always searching for accounts of odd weather occurrences. Here is one from 23rd March 1842
The Brig Triton 420t, sailing direct from Penzance to New York. Captain Wakeam. With 94 passengers, "off to seek fortune in a foreign land". The brig arrived at New York 9th May. All had been well and all landed safely. For two days and nights the vessel had been running 5 or 6 knots, in the midst of icebergs, which the captain had never seen on previous voyages. Other ships from Cornwall had not arrived (presumably also taking a slow course); The Triton then continued to Quebec, and then returned to Penzance the voyage taking 43 days on a very rough passage.
Just what caused that sudden break away of such a spread of ice? Was the severe weather that followed a result of the spread?
I seriously do not think that the subject of sea water levels can be treated in isolation. It is good to consider these things, it is out of these that someone actually picks it up and gets somewhere near the answer. Best Wishes, Raymond