Climate, melting ice and sea level

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Climate, melting ice and sea level




by Obamot » 09/02/11, 10:51

Topic splite of: https://www.econologie.com/forums/marche-sur ... 10459.html

dedeleco wrote:
the imminence of peak oil - when production after a period of stagnation, will begin to decline

is announced from the 1970 years, a period when it was announced the disappearance of oil by the year 2000 !!

In fact, since the land was 10 times more CO2 in the past several times (there 55millions years in particular), it is certain we have enough varied fossil fuels underground to multiply our CO2 or even burn all our oxygen !!

So you have to reach this limit CO2, even if the current warming is not the CO2 entirely.

Oil and fossil fuels will not be limited to themselves by a peak and exhaustion, but by rising seas, which once well underway to becoming quite inexorable 2m per century, as there 15000 years, gone for relentless rise 7000ans and without CO2 at all !!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/s ... t-ice-age/
If we had lived there for 14000ans 8000ans with this inexorable rise, without having done anything to anything, the plains like the Baltic Sea and inhabited populated being submerged inexorably, it would have been a huge disaster, unable to do anything to avoid it on !!! 5 millennia.
It remains for the future over millennia inexorable rise of similar 5m (Greenland) and endless 70m (Antarctica melted) !!
In fact there will be a rise of half that passed, similar to 70m between 12000 and past 8000ans.
Stability spent on past 7000ans, miraculous, unique on 400000 recent years !!
Image

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/s ... t-ice-age/
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/3/0394/97545
It is certain that Africa will be demolished and devastated more by exploiting its wealth to our only advantage.

But with this rising seas, the devastation will be global and inexorable for millennia !!

We can already remove all the heating CO2 with storage of solar heat in summer ordinary soil to heat the winter for cheap! as this link.
http://www.dlsc.ca/borehole.htm


I agree that we must be concerned about the rising water ... But it is not only related to the melting of glaciers but the moéculaire expansion. so I doubt very much that the level will rise as some claim. it would be contrary to the laws of physics. Besides the ice takes up more volume than water, so it takes the entire underwater portion of the ice will shrink in volume, which should lower the level for that portion there ...!

Then the saturation of the water in the air will increase by proportion, and this water will not mount seas, but will be in suspension. The land currently arride especially with the advance of the desert, also has a strong power of accumulation.

All these many points are not taken into account when we want to doom and gloom!

The man also can occur, channeling the water with large pipelines to bloom again desert areas. Désalinisant in sea water through solar thermal power plants ... Recovering = channeling water areas submerged by increased precipitation!
There are many things to do ... Over the long term.

For Co2, it is proven that over the rate increase, the plants love it and produce oxygen benefit ...
The real problem is the breeding and methane. Again, it does not mean that we should not reduce / control our emission sources ...

I am not as pessimistic overall, but act!
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 09/02/11, 13:33

Obamot wrote:.... Besides the ice takes up more volume than water, so it takes the entire underwater portion of the ice will shrink in volume, which should lower the level for that portion there ...!


: Shock:

It's a good one there! Mr. Obamot say, you've never seen ice cubes in a glass of water? They float and melt after: great!
I advise all the experience, it is instructive ... both on the level of water in the glass on the level of your response.
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET
"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 09/02/11, 14:21

dede on your last remark, you do not have the impression of harping endlessly the same things?

yes, but apparently; many do not seem to have understood and realized the reality based on the past without CO2 even Obamot in his response:
but it is not only related to the melting of glaciers but to molecular expansion. so I doubt very much that the level will rise as some claim. it would be contrary to the laws of physics. Besides the ice takes up more volume than water, so it takes the entire underwater portion of the ice will shrink in volume, which should lower the level for that portion there ...!

how the climate of the earth is unstable and unpredictable in the long term respecting
laws of physics
Very visible in the hundreds of thousands of years without doing anything to CO2, methane, etc .. that can melt all the Antarctic and back of 70m sea levels inexorably, as there 15000ans !!
I'm not pessimistic, but realistic, and I look past these curves, more scientifically it is clear that long-term catastrophic warming is possible and inevitable, with rising waters not limited to the expansion of water ocean !!!
The time constants are the thousands of years to warm the oceans, like to spend the ocean floor of 0 ° C ° C à4 current to 15 ° C (as there 55 million years) with low expansion ( a little more than a meter) from 70m ice that will melt inexorably 5000ans in the Antarctic, by not being strictly nothing, as there 15000ans for the melting ice of the last glaciation massive, virtually unknown cause (discussed with recognized but weak correlations) !!!
The claim that
all the submerged part of the ice will shrink in volume, which should lower the level for that portion there ...
is inconsistent following the laws of physics because ice floating on the water with 91% submerged and 9% outside melting and becoming liquid water does not change the water level at all, as well for a ice cube in a glass only for an iceberg in the sea, respecting the principle of Archimedes, old 2400ans !!
The volume of water in the form of saturated vapor in the atmosphere is low water level at 20 ° C, of ​​less than one meter (about the precipitation max in a single storm over an hour 30cm! ) and therefore negligible compared to 70m of ice from the Antarctic in the past million years !!!
So I ramble, but this catastrophic scientific reality for our future, is a sword of Damocles over our heads, real already, there 15000ans (with inexorable rise of catastrophic 7000ans), which threatens us again if we continue to fill our CO2 and methane atmosphere without limit.
It's very easy
because there is no limit to the amount of fossil fuels accumulated over 600millions years underground (forgetting the abiotic oil also real) before being multiplied by the 10 CO2 on earth as s' is produced there 55 million years naturally!
It can burn all our oxygen on land, in very small quantities compared to the ocean and rocks!
And the oxygen of our atmosphere 20% if converted into water (with hydrogen) would provide only 2m more water (1atmosphère equal 10m water pressure) !!
So compared to 4000m oceans is nothing !!!
For this reason it is very precious !!

I am a realist, and since we do not seem to understand, logically we become pessimistic, especially when we realize that the threshold of no return of the inexorable mounted due to almost nothing, considering that 15000ans ago, that spontaneous once exceeded remained inexorable on 7000ans where, had we lived at that time, we would not have stopped moving entire cities of the Baltic sea, the Black sea, of sunken islands, tsunamis, landslides to tidal waves of glaciers melting, etc .. endlessly 7000ans !!

This identical to the real future past threatens us again !!
I repeat, because by, explaining it, I become more aware of it too !!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 09/02/11, 15:15

highflyaddict wrote:
Obamot wrote:.... Besides the ice takes up more volume than water, so it takes the entire underwater portion of the ice will shrink in volume, which should lower the level for that portion there ...!


: Shock:

It's a good one there! Mr. Obamot say, you've never seen ice cubes in a glass of water? They float and melt after: great!
I advise all the experience, it is instructive ... both on the level of water in the glass on the level of your response.

...Yes it's right! I also know the history of the glass of water!

... If you had bothered me (re) reading, I was talking about the party submerged By definition, that one does not float!

To measure it accurately, measure the weight is on them ... [Edit: buoyancy] not be experienced with an ice cube.

Besides, your experience with a glass of water is very bad anyway: put your ice cubes in the water make a mark with a marker at the water level => and you will see that once your ice has melted the level will not have moved!
Last edited by Obamot the 10 / 02 / 11, 08: 54, 3 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 09/02/11, 15:24

highflyaddict wrote:: Shock:

It's a good one there! Mr. Obamot say, you've never seen ice cubes in a glass of water? They float and melt after: great!
I advise all the experience, it is instructive ... both on the level of water in the glass on the level of your response.


Well yes but this is only valid for "floating ice" = pack ice ...

The ice is what% of ice on Earth? Greenland is not ice ... if the Vikings would not have called green country ...

For details, go on wiki ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 09/02/11, 15:43

Yes quite; let's stop this catastrophism a bit, because if we do not take into account ALL the parameters, in the end we are no longer credible, because then we did not think about all the points we are opposed to, and we do not have more arguments to counter them;) So in the 'best interests' of the forum in particular (lol) and econology in general we must not be reluctant to be precise:

dedeleco wrote: very visible in the hundreds of thousands of years without doing anything to CO2, methane, etc .. that can melt all the Antarctic and back of 70m sea levels inexorably, as there 15000ans!

70m on 15'000 years, it does little 'that' 50cm for a century ... It is dramatic for Bangladesh ... and similar corners ... But man has time to s' adapt ... obviously if it does nothing ....

Anyway, this phenomenon is notoriously cyclical warming "Caused by human activity" or not ... (And I think that man has his hand without knowing why ...)

Another point which does not take at all into account, this is the question: "What would be the normal average temperature of sea water"?

The average water temperature in the sea was much warmer in ancient times (some argue ~ 37 ° C for a very long time ... since temperature is particularly favorable to the development of life! What is the temperature our body, which would thus have kept this temperature "in memory" of the time or we were "fish / amphibian" and we got out of the water) ...

There are such amphibians in temperate caves in the former Yugoslavia ...

And there ... should therefore measure the molecular expansion of the water to determine the level / volume "perfect balance" .... we will end up anyway ... The Earth never slows its speed rotation ... because of the tides ... so that the Moon is moving away ... causing tides less important ... but the phenomenon continues ... to other impacts and ... so on ... so we are all condemned to adapt ... over time ...;)
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 09/02/11, 17:11

Staggering to write:
70m on 15'000 years

because I put the actual visual curve recent and extensive research on the past sea level and it is not in 70m 15000ans but 70m in 5000ans with periods 2m century by even horrific debacle peaks of ice! !
There is much to discover on this past, we just started diving archeology of our ancestors overwhelmed.

For a little less stable 8000ans was incredible plateau that has never existed in 400000ans !!!!
Obamot and, like many others, condones the actual past events, measured, studied scientifically, not looking at these crucial studies, even seconds, on the actual curve I put sea level !!

It is true that Switzerland is far from the edge of the sea, but there 20000ans it was like the Antarctic under 2 to 3Km flowing ice to Lyon and even London !!!

T The sea has never been homogeneous, there are in-depth set by the T pole, max 15 ° C (55 million years, read scientific articles I quote from memory) and surface in places such as near the Gulf of Mexico (while wide open) with around 39 10 ° C and horrible times more CO2 seems you.
The expansion of water is well known and provides a small effect that is negligible compared to continental drift !!

The moon recovers energy of rotation of the earth with the tides, slightly behind the moon, which removes it from 2 3 cm in a year and so the change is significant that the billion years and negligible for us, even in a million years. !!

It must be added that the sun is warming but it is clear that the billion years (25% lower ago 4 billion years)

I think we should retain orders of magnitude to avoid mixing everything.

The climate of the earth is rather cold since 3 million years, more and more unstable (see the curve on 3 million years with the growing instability) and said little (nothing is known about the fluctuation of the sun on thousands of years, because not measured).
So without CO2, by analogy with the past, it is rather out slowly over tens of thousands of years for a glaciation, but if heated with CO2 by multiplying its concentration, instability will reverse, safe fusion any ice and then 5m 70m more water.
125000ans ago there was water in 3 5m more during the last warm period without CO2 (spontaneous overheating pic !!) !!!
This is further proof of the inherent instability of our climate !!
long read this link:
the southern half of Greenland had melted without any excess with CO2 to 2 3 ° C in addition to water and 3 5m more:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/3/0394/97545
Image

The catastrophic past is real, proven, indisputable, and so it's worth the watch face for the future instead of hiding his head like an ostrich.

Some scientists have even suggested that the stability of the current Holocene very surprising, is of the prehistoric man with agriculture since 10000ans, deforestation, etc .. compensated for the slow beginning of a new ice age !!
If this has any truth, then our current release CO2 and explosive CH4, ensures catastrophic developments for the future much worse than that of the Eemian
Last edited by dedeleco the 09 / 02 / 11, 17: 21, 2 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 09/02/11, 18:40

On Dede agreement, I do not disagree.

Indeed, it is a fluctuating phenomenon. So we can not say 50cm per century ... mea culpa!

Nevertheless, as shown by your curve when these large fluctuations have occurred, it was not the fault of the man!

Finally, we should do everything so that this does not happen in aggravated proportions. But it will not prevent the natural tendency.

Now that alpine areas are not affected is a kind of euphemism:
- Withdrawal unprecedented glaciers.
- Slow disappearance of permafrost.
- Entire villages swept by sudden impacts as receding floods in Gondo!
- Concern about the "holding" of dams!
- Abnormally low in high altitude lakes.
- Snow ski resorts, less good! (Which is the least of my worries, yes ...)
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 09/02/11, 18:48

Obamot wrote:
highflyaddict wrote:
Obamot wrote:.... Besides the ice takes up more volume than water, so it takes the entire underwater portion of the ice will shrink in volume, which should lower the level for that portion there ...!


: Shock:

It's a good one there! Mr. Obamot say, you've never seen ice cubes in a glass of water? They float and melt after: great!
I advise all the experience, it is instructive ... both on the level of water in the glass on the level of your response.

...Yes it's right! I also know the history of the glass of water!

... If you had bothered me (re) reading, I was talking about the party submerged By definition, that one does not float!

To measure it accurately, measure the weight is on them ... not be experienced with an ice cube.

Besides, your experience with a glass of water is very bad anyway: put your ice cubes in the water make a mark with a marker at the water level => and you will see that once your ice has melted the level will not have moved!


Obamot, so re-read your own quote that begins this message!

And then it's even better: the submerged ice does not float!
You'll have to reveal to us or from Earth to the submerged ice, which does not emerge, so .... LOL!

And the example of the cube is perfectly relevant when talking about submerged ice! Indeed, the level does not rise.

What raises the sea level, is the thermal expansion and the melting of ice emerged, Ie ice sheets and glaciers.

It's pretty clear there?

So the difference in density to "catch" the elevation a little, you will copy it to me ....
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 09/02/11, 21:24

... [Moderated by the author ...] Put salt in your glass of water and mix. [...]

density of the freshwater ice is about 920 kg / m³
density of sea water of about 1 025 kg / m³

Bizarre eh! Normal, the iceberg is fresh water in case you've forgotten ...

Obviously the test of ice water at home, is not significant ... The water comes from the tap ... so it was not the same density as sea water! Think is the physics of elementary base!

Why the bulk of an iceberg is under sea level ... Weird for a "floating ice" ... that the submerged part is more important than the visible part.

highflyaddict wrote:What raises the sea level, is the thermal expansion and the melting of ice emerged, Ie ice sheets and glaciers.


You make a generalization, but it is still wrong! Not that easy!

Water, present a particular behavior in its liquid phase between 0 ° C and + 4 ° C when the temperature increases within this range water shrinks and its specific volume decreases.

According to consider everything, so calculate everything ... and then there good luck to fall on the good ratios!

All right, then, I continue or do you want a sketch ... By the dint of wanting infantilize other by being unkind ... one finds herself in the position of the biter : Mrgreen:
Last edited by Obamot the 10 / 02 / 11, 09: 02, 2 edited once.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 124 guests