She Who Bicycles With Fishes

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> writes:

> I do believe that global warming is a real thing.

So does NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3

> I think that the oceans rising 80 meters is way out of range. Consider this: How much would the
> oceans rise if all the ice in the Arctic were to melt?

I dunno, but here's what the above site has to say:

"sea level rising? Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over
the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several
thousand years. Projected increase from 1990-2100 is anywhere from 0.09-0.88 meters, depending on
which greenhouse gas scenario is used and many physical uncertainties in contributions to sea-level
rise from a variety of frozen and unfrozen water sources."

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:46:10 +0000, cheg wrote:

> Theoretically, the water could rise 80 meters from where it is today. That would turn my city,
> Seattle, into an island group.

I guess we'll find out. Did this theory predict when we would get this 80 meters? Not to mention
where from. BTW, if it would turn Seattle into an island group, most of the world's population
would not have a whole lot of sympathy, since many of the world's major cities are at lower
elevations than that. Hmm. Including Philadelphia. Yes, you, that is a major city, or at least we
like to think so.

I do believe that global warming is a real thing. I think that the oceans rising 80 meters is way
out of range. Consider this: How much would the oceans rise if all the ice in the Arctic were to
melt? The answer is 0, since that mass is already supported by the water underneath. The only
"extra" water that could raise the ocean levels is land-based ice, chiefly in Antarctica, and even
much of the Antarctic ice is floating.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is _`\(,_ | not that they are
extreme, but that they are intolerant. (_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

 

[Cheg]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:46:10 +0000, cheg wrote:
>
> > Theoretically, the water could rise 80 meters from where it is
today. That
> > would turn my city, Seattle, into an island group.
>
> I guess we'll find out. Did this theory predict when we would get
this 80
> meters? Not to mention where from. BTW, if it would turn Seattle
into an
> island group, most of the world's population would not have a whole
lot of
> sympathy, since many of the world's major cities are at lower
elevations
> than that. Hmm. Including Philadelphia. Yes, you, that is a
major city,
> or at least we like to think so.
>
> I do believe that global warming is a real thing. I think that the
oceans
> rising 80 meters is way out of range. Consider this: How much
would the
> oceans rise if all the ice in the Arctic were to melt? The answer
is 0,
> since that mass is already supported by the water underneath. The
only
> "extra" water that could raise the ocean levels is land-based ice,
chiefly
> in Antarctica, and even much of the Antarctic ice is floating.
>
> --
> David L. Johnson
>
>

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ "Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the
Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a
sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level
rise of only one-half meter. "

The referenced table shows the volume of water frozen in Antarctica and elsewhere. That's what I
mean by theoretically.

Seattle we would be much better off than most of the world since we have hills every where. I live
at about 81 meters. 80 meters of seawater would submerge Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia,
Houston, New York, Boston, New Orleans, all of Florida, and the central California basin. Elsewhere,
it would submerge London, all of Holland, nearly all of Denmark, Lisbon, Venice, Alexandria, Cairo,
Bagdad, Karachi, all of Bangladesh, Madras, Calcutta, Bangkok, Singapore, Manila, Hanoi, Shanghai,
Bejing, among other major population centers. Even moderate changes in sealevel will cause enormous
dislocation of people.

BTW: the sea level was 120 meters lower than now 21000 years ago. Could go either way...

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:07:31 GMT, <7PEvb.207752$ao4.741429@attbi_s51>, "cheg"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>BTW: the sea level was 120 meters lower than now 21000 years ago. Could go either way...

But Seattle was buried under a mile of ice.
--
zk

 

[Tomp]

So what becomes of the bike, after completing this event of "Extreme Commuting"? Do you use a beater
bike that just suffers in silence, until one day it disintegrates to a pile of rust. Or is there
some regiment of service performed at the end of the day's commute?

cheg wrote:

> Nice day for going north from Seattle to south Everett, too. Steady snow all the way out, a foot
> of water over the road on Maple under the Mukilteo Speedway , and the 20 minute hail storm on the
> way home was a nice touch. I must have looked like a camel driver in a sandstorm with my wool
> scarf wrapped around my face. Who needs adventure travel when you have eXtreme Commuting.
>
> Still, it was a lot more fun than driving up I-5 would have been, and probably safer today.

--

Tp

-------- __o ----- -\<. ------ __o --- ( ) / ( ) ---- -\<. ----------------- ( ) / ( )
---------------------------------------------

Freedom is not free; Free men are not equal; Equal men are not free.

 

[Cheg]

"TomP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> So what becomes of the bike, after completing this event of "Extreme Commuting"? Do you
> use a beater bike that just suffers in silence, until one day it disintegrates to a pile
> of rust. Or is
there
> some regiment of service performed at the end of the day's commute?
>

Weekly cleaning and lube. Fortunately they don't salt the roads here.

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:07:31 +0000, cheg wrote:

> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ "Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the
> Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a
> sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level
> rise of only one-half meter. "
>
> The referenced table shows the volume of water frozen in Antarctica and elsewhere. That's what I
> mean by theoretically.
>

Something I found: http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/sotc/sea_level.html

Over the past 100 years sea level has risen by 1.0 to 2.5 millimeters per year, thus the
contribution from melting of smaller glaciers would be approximately 10 to 30 percent of the total.
However, climate models based on the current rate of increase in greenhouse gases indicate that sea
level will rise at a rate of about two to five times the current rate over the next 100 years as a
result of the combined effect of ocean thermal expansion and increased glacier melt

OK, at 5 times the current rate of sea level increase, say 10mm/year, in 100 years the sea would
rise exactly 1 meter. This is presuming that the rate of increase of greenhouse gas emmissions would
continue to increase at the current rate. It's worth noting that we don't have the petroleum to
accomplish that feat, either.

I still question the data of 80 meters total. The Greenland ice sheet, even if very thick, is very,
very small in area compared to the oceans of the world. Same for Antarctica, plus the fact that a
good part of that (Ross Ice Shelf) is over water, so melting would not contribute to sea level rise.
I haven't seen the estimates that go into that number.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember _`\(,_ | that your initial
objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ (_)/ (_) |

 

[Cheg]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:07:31 GMT, <7PEvb.207752$ao4.741429@attbi_s51>, "cheg"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >BTW: the sea level was 120 meters lower than now 21000 years ago. Could go either way...
>
> But Seattle was buried under a mile of ice.
> --
> zk

Yeah, that's why we have the hills. If you look at a shaded terrain map it looks like claw marks
from Bellingham to Olympia.

 

[Cheg]

> I still question the data of 80 meters total. The Greenland ice
sheet,
> even if very thick, is very, very small in area compared to the
oceans of
> the world.
Yes the Greenland ice sheet makes a small contribution, as stated in the referenced table. 90% of
the ice in the world is in Antarctica.

> Same for Antarctica, plus the fact that a good part of that (Ross Ice Shelf) is over water, so
> melting would not contribute to
sea
> level rise. I haven't seen the estimates that go into that number.
>
> --
>

That's wrong. For one thing the Ross Ice shelf is less than 5% of the surface area of Antarctica.
The average thickness of the remaining
12.5 million sq.km. is over 2000 meters, for a volume of 25 million cubic km. The surface area of
the oceans is about 300 million sq.km, so the total rise from melting all the ice in Antarctica
would be about 80 meters.

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:43:01 +0000, cheg wrote:

> That's wrong. For one thing the Ross Ice shelf is less than 5% of the surface area of Antarctica.
> The average thickness of the remaining 12.5 million sq.km. is over 2000 meters, for a volume of 25
> million cubic km. The surface area of the oceans is about 300 million sq.km, so the total rise
> from melting all the ice in Antarctica would be about 80 meters.

Still questioning. It would seem that the average thickness of the ice is more than the average
altitude of the continent. Again I don't have good enough data on this, but this site
http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/outreach/coldfacts.htm claims that the ice gets as thick as 4776
meters, much more than the peak altitude of the continent. So a fair fraction of this ice is already
below sea level.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of _`\(,_ | business. (_)/ (_) |

 

[Cheg]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:43:01 +0000, cheg wrote:
>
> > That's wrong. For one thing the Ross Ice shelf is less than 5% of
the
> > surface area of Antarctica. The average thickness of the
remaining 12.5
> > million sq.km. is over 2000 meters, for a volume of 25 million
cubic km.
> > The surface area of the oceans is about 300 million sq.km, so the
total
> > rise from melting all the ice in Antarctica would be about 80
meters.
>
> Still questioning. It would seem that the average thickness of the
ice is
> more than the average altitude of the continent. Again I don't
have good
> enough data on this, but this site http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/outreach/coldfacts.htm
> claims that
the ice
> gets as thick as 4776 meters, much more than the peak altitude of
the
> continent. So a fair fraction of this ice is already below sea
level.
>
> --
>
The peak altitude is actually about 4900 meters, and the average elevation of the continent as
a whole is 2300 meters. The land mass would eventually come up a long way due to isostaic
rebound once the
2.5E16 tons of ice came off, occupying whatever volume is now occupied by submerged ice.

Unless an asteroid strikes the south pole, we won't know how much the sealevel could rise for many
human lifetimes at least. Might as well go for a bike ride in the meantime.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:46:10 +0000, cheg wrote:
>
> > Theoretically, the water could rise 80 meters from where it is today. That would turn my city,
> > Seattle, into an island group.
>
> I guess we'll find out. Did this theory predict when we would get this 80 meters? Not to mention
> where from. BTW, if it would turn Seattle into an island group, most of the world's population
> would not have a whole lot of sympathy, since many of the world's major cities are at lower
> elevations than that. Hmm. Including Philadelphia. Yes, you, that is a major city, or at least we
> like to think so.
>
> I do believe that global warming is a real thing. I think that the oceans rising 80 meters is way
> out of range. Consider this: How much would the oceans rise if all the ice in the Arctic were to
> melt? The answer is 0, since that mass is already supported by the water underneath.

Not quite: there is a lot of water stored in land-based glaciers in the arctic zone as well. Most of
it is in Greenland, but there are significant amounts in Scandanavia, the Canadian islands and
Alaska as well.

> The only "extra" water that could raise the ocean levels is land-based ice, chiefly in Antarctica,
> and even much of the Antarctic ice is floating.

As a percentage, very little of it is floating; only the ice shelves. Almost all of it is sitting on
the ground, even though the ground is below sea level.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <7PEvb.207752$ao4.741429@attbi_s51>, [email protected] says...

...

> BTW: the sea level was 120 meters lower than now 21000 years ago. Could go either way...

That was during the last ice age. If the ice caps melt, it's certainly not going to go that way.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:43:01 +0000, cheg wrote:
>
> > That's wrong. For one thing the Ross Ice shelf is less than 5% of the surface area of
> > Antarctica. The average thickness of the remaining 12.5 million sq.km. is over 2000 meters, for
> > a volume of 25 million cubic km. The surface area of the oceans is about 300 million sq.km, so
> > the total rise from melting all the ice in Antarctica would be about 80 meters.
>
> Still questioning. It would seem that the average thickness of the ice is more than the average
> altitude of the continent. Again I don't have good enough data on this, but this site
> http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/outreach/coldfacts.htm claims that the ice gets as thick as 4776
> meters, much more than the peak altitude of the continent. So a fair fraction of this ice is
> already below sea level.

It is, but it's not floating, and if it melts, the land altitude will rebound rather quickly once
the extra weight is off it.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Mike Kruger]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
>
> It is, but it's not floating, and if it melts, the land altitude will rebound rather quickly once
> the extra weight is off it.
>
(Wandering further off topic) How quick is quick? I heard from a not necessarily reliable source
that Scotland is still rebounding from the last ice age, which is a while ago.

If it rebounds at speeds resembling geologic time, wouldn't the rebounding be substantially slowed
because it would still have a lot of water on top of
it (i.e. until it rebounds up to sea level, it will still have ice or water on it).

Not that I hope to be around to see it, but the thawing out of a continent would seem to pose lots
of interesting scientific questions.

 

[Cheg]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <7PEvb.207752$ao4.741429@attbi_s51>, [email protected] says...
>
> ...
>
> > BTW: the sea level was 120 meters lower than now 21000 years ago. Could go either way...
>
> That was during the last ice age. If the ice caps melt, it's
certainly
> not going to go that way.
>
> --
> Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before
replying!
>
> REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

IF the caps melt. Based on the geologic record, we're overdue for another ice age. We haven't been
around long enough to know what the natural variability of climate is. It might overwhelm our
contribution. (Please, no global warming flame wars...)

 

[Buck]

"cheg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:FeNvb.209567$ao4.745058@attbi_s51...

> That's wrong. For one thing the Ross Ice shelf is less than 5% of the surface area of Antarctica.
> The average thickness of the remaining
> 12.5 million sq.km. is over 2000 meters, for a volume of 25 million cubic km. The surface area of
> the oceans is about 300 million sq.km, so the total rise from melting all the ice in Antarctica
> would be about 80 meters.

Don't forget to calculate for the difference in volume between ice and water. Ice is about 90% as
dense as water, so adjust your calculations downward accordingly....

-Buck

 

[Cheg]

"Buck" <s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "cheg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:FeNvb.209567$ao4.745058@attbi_s51...
>
> > That's wrong. For one thing the Ross Ice shelf is less than 5% of
the
> > surface area of Antarctica. The average thickness of the
remaining
> > 12.5 million sq.km. is over 2000 meters, for a volume of 25
million
> > cubic km. The surface area of the oceans is about 300 million
sq.km,
> > so the total rise from melting all the ice in Antarctica would be about 80 meters.
>
> Don't forget to calculate for the difference in volume between ice
and
> water. Ice is about 90% as dense as water, so adjust your
calculations
> downward accordingly....
>
> -Buck
>
>
>

OK, but partially offset by isostatic rebound, and other icecaps.If this is calc is within 10% it's
purely coincidental. I was just showing that 80 meters is not an unreasonable number.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> >
> > It is, but it's not floating, and if it melts, the land altitude will rebound rather quickly
> > once the extra weight is off it.
> >
> (Wandering further off topic) How quick is quick? I heard from a not necessarily reliable source
> that Scotland is still rebounding from the last ice age, which is a while ago.

So is a lot of northern Europe. It's a measurable amount even on a yearly basis, a few mm per year,
and multiple meters in recorded history (since routine record-keeping began in Europe).

> If it rebounds at speeds resembling geologic time, wouldn't the rebounding be substantially slowed
> because it would still have a lot of water on top of
> it (i.e. until it rebounds up to sea level, it will still have ice or water on it).

True, but that's a lot lighter than 2000 meters of ice *above* sea level.

>
> Not that I hope to be around to see it, but the thawing out of a continent would seem to pose lots
> of interesting scientific questions.

It certainly does!

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.