The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

There are many today who'd argue with you about that. Read about Miami. Human's are NOT dealing fine with it.

There ought to be a penalty for building on the sandbar which is Miami. They are learning now why it's a bad idea.

[Kieran00001]

37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The thing is water is an unusual chemical. As a solid it is less dense than in its liquid form. That's why it floats.  So when sea ice melts,  it loses volume. As far as volume goes, it's a wash. Almost literally. That said, since much of the ice melt is due to warming seas, that is a problem because as liquid water gets warmer (above 4 degrees centigrade) it expands. And that does raise the sea level.

 

So does melting sea ice, as I explained above.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sea-level-rise/

 

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

There ought to be a penalty for building on the sandbar which is Miami. They are learning now why it's a bad idea.

 

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

So does melting sea ice, as I explained above.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sea-level-rise/

 

You're confusiing Miami Beach with Miami.

Miami Limestone of Florida and Its Recent Bahamian Counterpart

"The Miami Oölite, named by Sanford (1909) for the oölitic limestone of Pleistocene age which covers a large part of the southern tip of Florida, has been found to consist of two separate units—an upper unit, herein designated the oölitic facies, and a lower unit, called here the bryozoan facies. In this paper the two units are combined as the Miami Limestone,¹ a formational name which now seems more appropriate than the Miami Oölite. The bryozoan facies, the dominant constituents of which are massive compound colonies of the cheilostome bryozoan Schizoporella floridana Osburn surrounded by ooids and pellets, covers the greater part of Dade County and extends in places into adjoining counties—a total area of about 2000 square miles. It averages 10 feet in thickness in southeastern Florida and thins to 1 foot or so westward to the Gulf of Mexico."

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-abstract/78/2/175/6171/miami-limestone-of-florida-and-its-recent-bahamian?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

You're confusiing Miami Beach with Miami.

Miami Limestone of Florida and Its Recent Bahamian Counterpart

"The Miami Oölite, named by Sanford (1909) for the oölitic limestone of Pleistocene age which covers a large part of the southern tip of Florida, has been found to consist of two separate units—an upper unit, herein designated the oölitic facies, and a lower unit, called here the bryozoan facies. In this paper the two units are combined as the Miami Limestone,¹ a formational name which now seems more appropriate than the Miami Oölite. The bryozoan facies, the dominant constituents of which are massive compound colonies of the cheilostome bryozoan Schizoporella floridana Osburn surrounded by ooids and pellets, covers the greater part of Dade County and extends in places into adjoining counties—a total area of about 2000 square miles. It averages 10 feet in thickness in southeastern Florida and thins to 1 foot or so westward to the Gulf of Mexico."

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-abstract/78/2/175/6171/miami-limestone-of-florida-and-its-recent-bahamian?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Metaphors aren't your strong suit eh?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"The Miami Oölite, named by Sanford (1909) for the oölitic limestone of Pleistocene age which covers a large part of the southern tip of Florida, has been found to consist of two separate units—an upper unit, herein designated the oölitic facies, and a lower unit, called here the bryozoan facies. In this paper the two units are combined as the Miami

_{As a person, whose alphabeth actually is 29 letters and contains letters like ö. We don't take your abuse of our culture too lightly.}

_{We don't take your fake shows too kindly.} 

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, oilinki said:

_{As a person, whose alphabeth actually is 29 letters and contains letters like ö. We don't take your abuse of our culture too lightly.}

_{We don't take your fake shows too kindly.} 

 

How is a French named mineral being used within the name of a geological feature that is made up of said mineral an abuse of culture?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

How is a French named mineral being used within the name of a geological feature that is made up of said mineral an abuse of culture?

I don't know. Please tell me. 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's not a scientific response.

If the earth were a flat disk, I'd have to be a long way above sea level to see the curve in the distance. From sea level it would appear flat as far as I could see, unless the disk was so small that the edge could be seen from sea level. However, if it were small enough for that to be correct I wouldn't have to spend 11 hours in a plane travelling at over 300 kph to get to Thailand.

Regardless, your posts seem to be straying into very strange territory. After all, everyone knows that Helios drives the sun in a chariot across the sky every day.

Avoiding science, aren't you? 

 

Do you believe what science tells you about the earth orbiting the sun, even though it looks like the sun orbits the earth?  If so, why do you believe that but don't believe all the science saying sea levels are rising?

 

I provided you with three credible sources in post 662 showing sea levels are rising, but you continue to deny the science it because you can't see it.  You believe what you want to believe and disregard all evidence to the contrary.

 

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I assume the was  'is' not 'in'. But really, it is not huge. There were no great humanitarian tragedies related to the last 150 years of sea level rise. In fact in all of history, as the sea has gone up and down it really has been a big nothing. Sure people had to rebuild, but we rebuild anyways, even if we don't live near the ocean. History has shown that humans deal just fine with sea level rise.

Why don't you provide sources for your claims:

 

"Research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.^[31]

Projections assessed by the US National Research Council (2010)^[32] suggest possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm (22 and 79 in). The NRC describes the IPCC projections as "conservative".    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

There are many today who'd argue with you about that. Read about Miami. Human's are NOT dealing fine with it.

Here in my neck of the woods, seismologists are predicting a 9.0+ earhquake in the next 50-100 years that will drop coastal land levels by 10-20 ft..   I have no reason not to believe them, yet still they are issuing building permits in the areas most likely to be affected if their predictions come to pass. It seems to me that governments are simply using human lives to extend their power over those same humans. They feed the scepticism because it is win/win for them.

 

 

Seems to me the government is going to do the same for all the people at risk of global sea level rise as they did for all of these folks.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Here in my neck of the woods, seismologists are predicting a 9.0+ earhquake in the next 50-100 years that will drop coastal land levels by 10-20 ft..   I have no reason not to believe them, yet still they are issuing building permits in the areas most likely to be affected if their predictions come to pass. It seems to me that governments are simply using human lives to extend their power over those same humans. They feed the scepticism because it is win/win for them.

 

 

Seems to me the government is going to do the same for all the people at risk of global sea level rise as they did for all of these folks.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll

Unfortunately short-term profits to be made from development always trump rational long-term planning--developers pay off politicians who aren't thinking beyond the next election.  That is why development in sinking cities already prone to floods continues from Miami to Bangkok, and buildings, sometimes nuclear power plants, go up in seismically active areas that are due a major quake in the near future.

[canuckamuck]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why don't you provide sources for your claims:

 

"Research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters.^[31]

Projections assessed by the US National Research Council (2010)^[32] suggest possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm (22 and 79 in). The NRC describes the IPCC projections as "conservative".    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

You want me to provide a link for no major sea rise calamities in history?

Can you tell me where they detail all of the things that didn't happen in history. I'll look for it there.

[ilostmypassword]

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

There ought to be a penalty for building on the sandbar which is Miami. They are learning now why it's a bad idea.

10 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Metaphors aren't your strong suit eh?

That was a metaphor? Someone points out Miami as a case where rising sea levels have had an effect and you contend that your reply was metaphorical? You say Miami is built on a sandbar ahd that's a bad idea. Even without the second sentence, your claim is massively dubious, but the second sentence "They are learning now why it's a bad idea" renders your assertion simply and utterly ridiculous.

 

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

Here in my neck of the woods, seismologists are predicting a 9.0+ earhquake in the next 50-100 years that will drop coastal land levels by 10-20 ft..   I have no reason not to believe them, yet still they are issuing building permits in the areas most likely to be affected if their predictions come to pass. It seems to me that governments are simply using human lives to extend their power over those same humans. They feed the scepticism because it is win/win for them.

 

 

Seems to me the government is going to do the same for all the people at risk of global sea level rise as they did for all of these folks.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll

Governments using human lives to extend their power? In the West? Where they face tough elections every 4 years. And are elected by the people. Seriously?

 

Can you imagine the outrage if they stopped building? How costs elsewhere would skyrocket? They'd never get reelected by those whose lives are " using". LOL

 

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Unfortunately short-term profits to be made from development always trump rational long-term planning--developers pay off politicians who aren't thinking beyond the next election.  That is why development in sinking cities already prone to floods continues from Miami to Bangkok, and buildings, sometimes nuclear power plants, go up in seismically active areas that are due a major quake in the near future.

In Los Angeles, many buildings have been upgraded over the years to better deal with earthquakes. At a huge expensive. I got to see one up close. Amazing what they did.

 

These were required by the local government. Mandatory. The same government who uses people's lives to get reelected.  LOL. And they are still doing these upgrades today.

[canuckamuck]

34 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

That was a metaphor? Someone points out Miami as a case where rising sea levels have had an effect and you contend that your reply was metaphorical? You say Miami is built on a sandbar ahd that's a bad idea. Even without the second sentence, your claim is massively dubious, but the second sentence "They are learning now why it's a bad idea" renders your assertion simply and utterly ridiculous.

 

The metaphor was, "the sandbar that is Miami". Obviously I know that Miami is not a sandbar but it resembles one; and the foolishness of building so much property just above the high tide mark is now becoming obvious.  They are learning why it was a bad idea, nothing ridiculous in any of what I said.

[craigt3365]

I've got a friend who lives next to the beach in Florida. Insurance costs have skyrocketed. Almost all new construction is steel. But as you say, it's a tough place to live. Not worth the risks for me!

[F4UCorsair]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

Even if 3% is correct (you don't provide a source for this information), if we add 3% a year extra CO2 to the environment and simultaneously cut down forests that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, the earth will experience an increase in CO2 concentrations that will become dangerously high over the decades, which is what measurements show is happening.

 

 

3% is wildly extravagant.

 

400 ppm really is only .04%, but I went with what the climate change disciples said, 75 times the ACTUAL!!!

[F4UCorsair]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

Avoiding science, aren't you? 

 

Do you believe what science tells you about the earth orbiting the sun, even though it looks like the sun orbits the earth?  If so, why do you believe that but don't believe all the science saying sea levels are rising?

 

I provided you with three credible sources in post 662 showing sea levels are rising, but you continue to deny the science it because you can't see it.  You believe what you want to believe and disregard all evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

200 mm in 120 years??    That's 1.66 mm/.066 inches a year!

 

Run folks, we're in diabolical trouble, all about to be drowned, if not today, then in another thousand years, or ten thousand years..

[F4UCorsair]

19 hours ago, uncleeagle said:

 

nope, a minimum 30% of current atmospheric levels are now due to man made activities.

 

for roughly 600,000 years the range was 100 to 300 ppm but over the last century that range was broken and the level rose quickly to 400ppm, the additional 100 having risen at such a fast rate that only man made activities could have been the cause, all previous natural drivers having much slower time scales.

 

furthermore, the mass of this additional level agrees very well with the amount of carbon known to have been burned since the start of the industrial revolution.

 

its us, all the evidence points to that.

 

It IS 3%,  but even if it is 30%, and man made emissions are reduced to zero tonight, it will only slow the increase, not stop it.

 

The 70% will still do us in, but at a slower rate.  We cannot reduce natural emissions.

 

You can see that, can't you?

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is combination of run off and precipitation, no doubt actually mainly run off.

Sea ice is not salt water, almost all salt is pushed out while it freezes, only some salt crystals can remain trapped in the ice, the actual ice is fresh water.

As ice from sea water is always much lower salinity than the sea water it came from it is also less dense, salt adds density to water, so if you then melt that ice into the sea water it will decrease the density of the sea water and thus increase its volume, that would not work in your bath though as it is not salt water.  If all the floating ice in the world melted it would increase global sea levels by 4-6cm.

So I used "salt" instead of "sea" by mistake, but I'm sure everyone knows what I meant. I was making a distinction between ice formed from sea water that makes zero difference to sea level when it melts and barrier ice which was formed by precipitation a very long time ago when it did snow in Antarctica.

When I was there, it was kind of cool to be drinking water melted from ice that was probably frozen thousands if not millions of years ago.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Governments using human lives to extend their power? In the West? Where they face tough elections every 4 years. And are elected by the people. Seriously?

 

Can you imagine the outrage if they stopped building? How costs elsewhere would skyrocket? They'd never get reelected by those whose lives are " using". LOL

 

 

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. It is a shortcoming of this medium. Anyhow, bureaucrats are generally not elected persons.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

In Los Angeles, many buildings have been upgraded over the years to better deal with earthquakes. At a huge expensive. I got to see one up close. Amazing what they did.

 

These were required by the local government. Mandatory. The same government who uses people's lives to get reelected.  LOL. And they are still doing these upgrades today.

 

I guarantee you when the earth drops 20 feet in 30 seconds those bracing straps and anchor tie downs aren't going to do you much good.

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

In Los Angeles, many buildings have been upgraded over the years to better deal with earthquakes. At a huge expensive. I got to see one up close. Amazing what they did. These were required by the local government. Mandatory. The same government who uses people's lives to get reelected.  LOL. And they are still doing these upgrades today.

When I visited Tokyo, about 30 yrs ago, I looked closely at a 3-story townhouse that was still under construction.  It was framed with 2x6's.  But what mostly got my attention (I'm a carpenter) was the gizmos they used in to defray affects of earthquakes.  Impressive uses of unusually-shaped steel fasteners at corners, use of rubber, among other gizmos.  After the Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco (I resided near there at the time), I thought of offering a product to homeowners.  It would be basically a steel cable run over their house (like putting a ribbon on a Xmas package), anchored to heavy concrete footings at ground level.

I never got around to marketing the idea.

 

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I've got a friend who lives next to the beach in Florida. Insurance costs have skyrocketed. Almost all new construction is steel. But as you say, it's a tough place to live. Not worth the risks for me!

I recall seeing a brief video, decades before Youtube, of a guy who built a small house on the Florida coast.  The wall facing the coast was framed to collapse if hit by strong force of waves.  The idea being; he would lose the wall and furniture, but the structure of the house would remain sound.   Not sure whether the parallel wall in the back was also designed to collapse.   And no word on whether his idea worked as planned.

[boomerangutang]

7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I guarantee you when the earth drops 20 feet in 30 seconds those bracing straps and anchor tie downs aren't going to do you much good.

A drop of 20 ft is very rare.  It's about as rare as getting hit by a piece of Skylab falling from the sky.   Actually, 20 ft in 30 seconds is slower than an elevator/lift, so is rather slow - closer to the drop of a lift behind a moving van.   The earth will lower at the same rate anything above it lowers, so it sounds like a soft landing - though granted, levels would shift.  It sounds like you're describing a sink-hole (quite rare) or sliding down an eroding hill (also rare).   Are we talking about earthquakes?   I don't know, maybe I lost the plot (pun intended).

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

A drop of 20 ft is very rare.  It's about as rare as getting hit by a piece of Skylab falling from the sky.   Actually, 20 ft in 30 seconds is slower than an elevator/lift, so is rather slow - closer to the drop of a lift behind a moving van.   The earth will lower at the same rate anything above it lowers, so it sounds like a soft landing - though granted, levels would shift.  It sounds like you're describing a sink-hole (quite rare) or sliding down an eroding hill (also rare).   Are we talking about earthquakes?   I don't know, maybe I lost the plot (pun intended).

 

Now I understand why you use that "confused" emoticon so much. Anyway I'm talking about the Cacadia subduction fault which, according to seismologists is due to deliver a 9.0 earthquake anytime from now to 200 years from now. There's no particular reason that anyone not living in that area should worry about it, I only used it as an illustration. Personally I don't worry about these kinds of things.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

24 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

When I visited Tokyo, about 30 yrs ago, I looked closely at a 3-story townhouse that was still under construction.  It was framed with 2x6's.  But what mostly got my attention (I'm a carpenter) was the gizmos they used in to defray affects of earthquakes.  Impressive uses of unusually-shaped steel fasteners at corners, use of rubber, among other gizmos.  After the Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco (I resided near there at the time), I thought of offering a product to homeowners.  It would be basically a steel cable run over their house (like putting a ribbon on a Xmas package), anchored to heavy concrete footings at ground level.

I never got around to marketing the idea.

 

 

Too bad nobody from Kobe visited Tokyo 30 years ago. 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So I used "salt" instead of "sea" by mistake, but I'm sure everyone knows what I meant. I was making a distinction between ice formed from sea water that makes zero difference to sea level when it melts and barrier ice which was formed by precipitation a very long time ago when it did snow in Antarctica.

When I was there, it was kind of cool to be drinking water melted from ice that was probably frozen thousands if not millions of years ago.

 

Melting sea ice does cause sea level rise, I don't understand why you are still denying this simple science, read the link I posted, it is quite easy to understand.  And there is precipitation in Antarctica, what makes you think the ice you drank was old?

[Kieran00001]

3 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

It IS 3%,  but even if it is 30%, and man made emissions are reduced to zero tonight, it will only slow the increase, not stop it.

 

The 70% will still do us in, but at a slower rate.  We cannot reduce natural emissions.

 

You can see that, can't you?

 

It is much more complicated than that, as we increase the earths temperature we change the natural balance of co2 producers, there are now more algae in the oceans as the sea temperate has increased.

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The metaphor was, "the sandbar that is Miami". Obviously I know that Miami is not a sandbar but it resembles one; and the foolishness of building so much property just above the high tide mark is now becoming obvious.  They are learning why it was a bad idea, nothing ridiculous in any of what I said.

It may or may not be obvious to you. All readers have to go on is what you write.