The Melting Polar Cap

I suspect you are correct. All the GW talk has somewhat disappeared now that the Democrats are in the Whitehouse. Havent actually seen much of the doom and gloom in the ragsheets like Time lately.

Hear, hear!

I don't know why anyone would have a hard time accepting the idea of rising ocean levels. It's simple historical fact that the ocean levels now are 100's of feet higher than they were just 10,000-20,000 years ago. They idea that they might rise an additional 10 to 30 feet - enough to swamp the east and gulf coasts - hardly seems a stretch. And of course - the thing that regulates the ocean levels is, as you mentioned, land locked sea ice.

Ice melting off the land in antartica will take weight of and the land will rise and make room for the newly melted water, so, this too means the waters won't rise like predicted.

You're kidding right?

The amount of water that the land mass of Antarctica will displace will remain more or less constant, regardless of how much the land rises. Unless you believe that Antarctica is a giant floating continent.

Some places it has everything to do with uplift or subduction. Other places like where I live are in the middle of a massive continental plates and tectonics don't account for the very measurable uplifting we have around here and going into Canada as well.

The near two miles of ice that was present during the last ice age pushed the North American continent plate down significantly around these parts. Yearly glacial rebound uplifting in the Red River Vally is easily measured. Also its well known that large man made lakes cause localized dips in the earth crust as well. Nevada had and still does have micro tremors just from the lake forming behind Hover Dam.

The giant Three Gorges Dam and resulting reservoir in China is being extensively studied for these effects by geologists world wide in attempts to further understand and predict what effects large bodies of water forming has on the earths crust, local environment and possibly global weather patterns as well.

Actually, if you go back to the last warm period, significantly older than your 10,000 to 20,000 years, sea levels were significantly higher than anything that has been suggested to await us in the future...

No doubt, my quick calculation of a 60+ meter rise accounted only the water of Antarctica. There's also Greenland, Canada's Yukon and Northwestern Territories, the Scandinavian Peninsula, and Siberia that will add to the ocean levels, to just name several of the major contributers.

CrazyOzzy,

I do agree with your comments that our contribution to the rising seas may very well be overblown. You did a very nice job of explaining your opinion and documenting the changes in sea level that have already occurred over time. I won't cloud your comments by repeating them.

But Ronsetto just dismissed any effect from happening without any explanation. Now Ronsetto may have done this just to provoke a new GW thread. He may be having difficulty articulating his reasoning. He may just be mimicking an unreasoned opinion he overheard to find out if it has merit. I guess I expected better from the contributers of an engineering blog.

Is that at the same level? or due to Tectonic plate movement....see post #29

Ronseto,

Your opinion disturbs me. You dismiss the expected effect of rising tides from global warming with nothing but the wave of your hands over a keyboard. You provide no reference data, no methodology, no corroborating opinions only an observation of what has yet to happen. The only data you provide is some unsubstantiated opinions. Well lets look at one of your opinions, you believe that the Bay of Fundy will only have a high tide increase of only a foot or two. You'll notice at the Wikipedia link that the two Bays that incorporate the Bay of Fundy have a spring tide of over fifty feet and that the highest storm surge tide was some twenty feet higher than that. So you believe that melting the ice in the polar region will not raise this tide an additional 10% that a storm surge does.

Well if you expect that only the ice cap of Greenland had melted, you might be right but you didn't tell us that. If you had planned on only melting a quarter of the antarctic ice cap, you might be right but you didn't tell us that. If you had expected only the ice trapped in the Scandinavian peninsula to melt into the sea, you might be right but you didn't tell us that. If you referenced an Al Gore website on global warming and showed where you believe calculation errors were done, you might be right but you didn't tell us that. You backed your opinion with nothing.

So, in summation, why should anyone believe you?

lol....this is not a thesis. You wish to know more, wave your fingers over the key board yourself and research points I and the Op have raised....and Bay of Funday...whatever that is...did I reference it? I also suggest you read what I have submitted and take into context the OP's summation and not glide over it, ignoring points raised and mis-referencing others to support your own. Not a clever way to the path of persuasion.

CraziestOzzy,

Fair enough, lets see what a little math and web references (all Wikipedia) can come up with.

Water surface area of the Earth = 361,132,000 km² ≡WA

Antarctica area covered by ice = 13,720,000 km² ≡AA

Antarctic ice average thickness= 1600 meters ≡AT

So the square kilometer units will cancel that makes the average rise if all of the antarctic ice but only this ice melts into the oceans and seas

AA*AT/WA=13,720,000*1600 meters/ 361,132,000≈60.8 meters

Now I was surprised that the ice was nearly a mile thick, but I did find multiple sources that cited similar numbers. We could argue that not all of this ice could ever completely melt. This quick analysis did not include any understanding how warm it must be for all of Antarctica to thaw. But even if a quarter of this antarctic ice melts into the ocean surely other locations would likely also melt. So if only a third of this volume of water (1/4 of all of Antarctica from Antarctica +1/12 of all of Antarctica from elsewhere) fills the ocean and without taking into account the obvious larger area the seas and oceans will occupy with this added water then the oceans will rise only 20 meters.

As requested, a quick simple referenced analysis.

Ronsetto, I do not believe your numbers. Please explain where you found them.

It was not my intention to present any scientific proof or reference data to back up my statements. Any discussion of a scientific nature is beyond my knowledge as I am not a geologist or scientist of nature. I am only repeating what I and I'm sure others have heard. I was merely asking for your opinions in order to put to rest some of these unfounded statements. My personal opinion is all of these doom sayers don't know what they are talking about and are using this to further their own agenda. You have presented some figures and I neither accept or reject them. That is my opinion and I stick to it.

BTW, if you wish to refer to me by name, please get the spelling right.

Ronseto,

First my apologies on the misspelling of your name, I assure you this was accidental.

Now to parse your initial question and my calculations. IF the antarctic completely melted as your initial question stated then clearly the ocean levels will rise dramatically. I suspect that if this does occur, the average level of the oceans will not be of paramount importance to humanity.

So this leads to your alluded question, is the consumption of fossil fuel responsible for this threat or is this an eco-terrorist exploitation? The only real answer to this is that nobody knows for sure. I do understand that despite recent data the Earth on average is warming. I am not personally convinced that we are to blame. I do believe that some (like me )are taking the opportunity to ride this apparent threat and promote the switch to non-fossil energy. I happen to believe that basing our economy on any limited supply is doomed to eventual failure. So why not try to find renewable sources now. Now we can afford to stumble in this opening frontier. When the oil nearly runs out will not be the time to start looking.

Oddly I sort of hope they run the oil supply dry and don't realize it until the day its gone!

Those of us that do see it coming and have done something ahead of time will only be inconvenienced by it. If the majority of the people don't have something in place by then... Well, it sucks to be them because I will have my systems set up and ready to use and available for sale, but not cheap!

I am not far off from complete energy independence with my home as is. Another year or two and I should be 100% independent for heat and electricity. By having already changed my vehicles over to vapor fuel systems over the years I am only a short jump from full hydrogen operation. Just by adding more wind power capacity I can go full electric for the vast majority of my local transportation needs too.

I used to feel bad for people that don't plan ahead but after having dealt with them long enough I came to realize its their own dam fault and they deserve no sympathy from me.

It is not my intent to insult anyone here on this CR4 forum or beat my chest with my fists and proclaim all I have said is the only way to enlightenment. I met your response redfred (#5), to ronseto's post in what I believe to be on equal terms as far as the tone of your argument was concerned.

I considered ronseto's opening post to be an uneducated one, deserving of less poignant critism given. Ronseto later stated that to be the case. I summed up his query in the context given and gave a response, albeit very crudely watered down in my attempt to offer understanding to the layman.

I believe I have covered most points relevant to this discussion, providing a generalised opinion. I am very much aware of the "Salem witch hysteria" that pervades this subject of global warming and sea level rise. Anyone who disagrees with the hyped up statement of doom and gloom and condemned to live a life in Kevin Costner's "waterworld" is branded as a heretic.

In summation to any points I have previously raised in this post, I wish to emphasise that most of the hysteria generated by this subject ignores the geologic fact that we are in fact at or near the peak of natural interglaciation. Sea levels will rise, perhaps even further than the previous interglaciation, regardless of any anthropological influence. The rate over time and the extent of the peak of sea level for this Present interglacial period may be influenced by "green house gases".

I certainly would not build on a coastal area that is several metres above the Present mean sea level, based on the knowledge that with or without human influence, sea levels will/may rise above their Present current level.

When I first heard of the threat of sea level rise, my immediate thought was, "WOW! New York City will make a great artificial reef for fishes! And, think of the money we won't have to spend on urban renewal!". Unfortunately, it seems my elation was a bit premature...

To all in general,

Do any of the scenarios envision a major amount of the melt to end up in the thermo-sphere, aloft, and not in the oceans? I believe that would constitute a moderately temperate, true 'greenhouse' worldwide that would not be the disaster so often proffered. That with the extra benefits of radiation mitigation I presume? CJM

I seem to remember reading recently that the whole surface of the Earth is thought to be fluid to some extent, that is , the 'dry'/'solid'/'non-ocean and sea' areas are, like the tidal effects of the oceans, rising and falling to varying extents over the Earth's surface.

The question had been posed: Where on the Earth's surface should a 'Datum Ocean Level' be established, such that any perceived variation in sea-level is, in fact, due to variation in the sea-level only, and not, in part, due to the 'measuring stick', cemented into the Earth's surface at that locality, rising or sinking.

To nail this anomaly, I understand scientists are in the process of setting up an astronomical instrument which will measure and monitor the distance from a chosen point on the Earth's surface, where the instrument is located, to a likewise chosen star. This technique will be so accurate that the resultant datum, relating to the height of the Earth's surface in that locality, together with any time related variation in that height, will be more accurate and more meaningful than any terrestrial method used by Man thus far.

Watch out for further announcements!

The most precise measurements of sea level used today are from satellite orbit. Once the deviations for apogee and perigee are taken into account the measurements actually are referenced to the center of mass of the Earth.

Whether we are making any difference or not, there is no excuse for exacerbating this natural phenomenon. Any sort of waste is a shame and should be avoided if at all possible. If we improve our fuel efficiency then we will be able to use these coastal areas for longer.

The maths of it all is somewhat irrelevant in that the data is incomplete, but we can see the effects on cities like London and Venice and it seems fairy apparent that we will lose these habitable areas to the sea within a few years (decades?)

There is no proof that global warming is happening, the Earth's average temperature goes in cycles from the 70's to 2000 it went up but the say over the last 10 years it has gone down. We could have used some warming last January in Chicago when it was -5F degrees outside. It sickens me that people like Al Gore preaches this garbage when they have no hard facts and then they hop in their private jet and fly around the world spreading more polution then 10 commen men.

Since my apprehension as to the validity of mankind producing Global Warming has already been documented in this thread, I'll play devil's advocate.

Once sufficient data has been taken to show the expected temperature climb from the increase of greenhouse gasses we are introducing, it will likely be to late to do anything about it. This is the inherent drawback of any gradual compounding problem. Mitigation of this type of problem to be successful must start long before the effect becomes intolerable.

Hey Redfred, you don't have the time to prove the validy of global warming. The earth is millions of years old and its warming and cooling does go in cycles. You are looking at a period of industrialization of 75 to 100 years. Now don't get me wrong I believe we should all go "Green" whenever reasonably possible, I support state emission vehicle testing but these enviromentalist wackos that believe we should all live like cavemen in the stone age are full of it.

In response to: "We have no idea why previous temperature changes happened." "But nobody knows which is cause and which is effect." "Can we by this change the climate?"

Science may back up theories regarding global warming, but IF and WHEN it happens seems to me to be the real questions Attempts have been made in the past to predict when the San Francisco peninsular would break away from California and tumble into the Pacific ocean. My point is: No amount of science is going to give us answers that we can "take to the bank". The chances of the water level rising to flood coastal cities may be shown as fact, but until it actually does, it is not fact, merely speculation. How does anyone know that some change could cause the global climate change to reverse itself? Maybe something occurring in space could influence what happens here on earth. No one knows. For me, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it because there is nothing we can do to change a thing. I feel it's arrogant for anyone, even with a sheath full of degrees to think they can change the world or affect a change in nature. Civilization can only go so far in the quest for the secrets of life and the universe. I don't think we will ever cross that boundary where "all will be revealed to us"; Maybe after death???? IMHO

"...may be shown as fact, but until it actually does, it is not fact, merely speculation."

"No amount of science is going to give us answers that we can 'take to the bank'"

An interesting philosophy that in my opinion, lacks the logic to support itself. I know that winter will eventually lead to summer. Also, I know that day will turn into night. These predictions (I could have mentioned thousands more), are "shown as fact". Also, I know that in astronomical terms of time and scale, these predictions are "merely speculation". An asteroid may dislodge from its usual orbit and become a meteorite, hitting the earth with dire consequences...changing all predictions.

What I do know, if I throw an apple into the air, the apple will fall to the ground. It could be speculated that the apple will not fall to the ground...a bird could fly by and grab the apple, preventing its natural descent to the ground.

I also know that if I stand in front of the path of a moving bus I will be run over with dire consequence for my well being. I also know the bus may stop as a tire may fall off, the bus may apply its brakes, I might get run over by another bus.

If I prepare myself for the known facts of my consequences, the predictions of those consequences can be abated. Nothing is definitive, but is predictable and thus (in my scenarios) ...normally avoidable.

Well put Ron, and Good Answer.

Dragon

yes, a baffling event has been ignored by the soothsayers of doom...the last few years has seen a decrease in global temperature averages. Mother Nature is truly unpredictable

Let the mean anual temperature rise 10 deg. Let sea level rise 40 meters. I will have palm trees growing on my beach front property in New England

Does kinda kill the ski resort business though.

Ron, you seem to have set off a firestorm of opinions here, some by those who think that Wikipedia is equal to the Word of God. Yes, scientists have their own set of theology to offset the fundamentalists. I have never seen an atom, electron, positron, dinosaur, or any of the other items that have been offered as proof. No Darwinist has been able to prove to me that those dinosaur bones were not created by the Fundamentalist God when the earth was originally created. If you want proof, it will not be given, you will choose for yourself what you will believe. And Science requires as much "Faith" as Religion. Your observation concerning a limited range of sea level is accurate. There is a story about a flood that covered the earth, but again, no conclusive evidence has been given, except for some indications that there may have been a massive extinction event associated with an event in the Gulf of Mexico.

None of the rants I have read in this thread have considered the truly dynamic nature of the phenomenon. None have considered the change in salinity as the fresh water floated over the denser salt water, and reduced the vaporization temperature. This will enhance evaporation, the winds will carry the vapor into the cooler polar regions, and new ice will be formed from it. We live on an extremely dynamic planet, and any thoughtful consideration of outcomes must consider all the dynamics.

The only faith required by Science is the faith that things can be known. Wikipedia was nothing more than a convenient source of information for citing a simple analysis. But I at least did cite my source. If you wish more respected sources, you should both cite your own sources and not anonymously post your comments. You will never see an atom, electron, or positron for we see photons. But Science does not believe these conventions because they are written in any text, nor because some elder can repeat dogma. Science believes these conventions because they accurately predict many phenomena before they were observed.

You seem to only believe in things explained by your Holy Book. How do you explain how your computer works?

In response to Guest #47

"Wikipedia is equal to the Word of God"

The only reference made comparing the word of god to Wikepedia is from our anonymous guest.

"scientists have their own set of theology to offset the fundamentalists"

I have never met a qualified scientist representing the physical realm that has his/her own "set of theology"...outside of Sunday School. If as the guest implies, a given set of theology offsets that of the fundamentalist...is the guest implying the fundamentalist (in what context would not know as guest explains no further) is null and void?

"I [guest] have never seen an atom, electron, positron, dinosaur, or any of the other items that have been offered as proof."

I ask myslef, proof of what? Perhaps the guest needs to get out more and visit the local museum.

"dinosaur bones were not created by the Fundamentalist God"

Ahh, finally the guest has revealed intent. My ex-wife is an old dinosaur, I don't need to offer any proof of that. Some may argue she always will be an old dinsosaur, unearthed from the ground a thousand years hence by archaeologist and marvelled as the missing link. The CIA, ASIO, KGB has no artistic ability and therefore incapable of creating another Michelangelo's "David". So who who makes those bones that people are forever digging up of prehistoric remains and bury them in the ground? Leprechauns?

"If you want proof, it will not be given" guest really needs to get out more. Do visit the local museum and do us all a favour.

"Science requires as much "Faith" as Religion"

There is a big difference between faith and knowing. If I stand in front of the path of a moving bus travelling at a speed in excess of 100kmh, I know that many physical forces are currently in operation with many more to follow as a consequence of my being hit by that bus. I will say though, I will know very little after that eventful imapact.

"There is a story about a flood that covered the earth, but again, no conclusive evidence has been given"

All the cultures of humanity throughout the globe somehow got together and had a big chin wag over a huge bonfire and a couple of Mammoth steaks...discussing a great flood that occured a long time ago...guest, your really need to do some research before sharing ill informed opinions.

Weird. Last winter was the coldest one in my life time and with the most snow in my life time as well. Around here spring and summer came 2 - 3 weeks late. Migratory birds that show up here in April didn't come until early May! Seasonal fruit and berry trees and plants are weeks behind their normal ripening times. Its August and I am still picking ripe June berries!

I have ran my home AC for three hours one day this year. Typically I have ran it for near two months by now. Comparing seasonal run time and power usage for My AC system I am at the lowest ever. Right now I stand at having used less than 1 % of my highest seasonal AC power consumption ever. (yea I record silly stuff like that)

Fall crop harvest may very well be early winter harvest going by calender season and not apparent season.

Even our local global warming nuts are having a tough time. There is no one who listens to them any more with any seriousness. Some even had to get real jobs!

You guys are crazy.

Sun output is reported as down, and temps stay same, or go up.

Birds nest in the Arctic three weeks before they did 30 years ago.

Methane out of permafrost is being unleashed from Greenland and Alaska.

Burn everything up and it gets hotter, big surprise.

Sometimes I wonder if some of you hate yourselves and mankind in general.

I'm tempted to pass a law requiring you to paint your roofs white regardless of what it does.

Get some sunglasses.

P.S. Roger Pink doesn't even bother to call you fools anymore.

A cataclysmic event could reverse everything and write a new chapter in history. What that event is, no one can predict or even guess. In 1883 the volcano, Krakatoa erupted killing many thousands and sending tsunamis waves across the Pacific. The following year, world temperatures dropped as much as 1.2°C and didn't normalize until 1888.

The Arctic ice mass would contribute diddlysquat. The Antarctic Ice cap would be more significant. The 2 miles of ice on Greenland would be the most significant. Add to that the rise of Greenland from the reduced weight of ice, the possible subsidence of other areas to equalize tension on the mantle, and all the math goes out the window. 16-20 Meters is the best guess. But what happens when the earths crust seeks equilibrium?

I mean, here I am at 1900ft. elevation. There is another 1000ft. of mountain behind me. Add another 1000ft. 20 miles down the road a piece. It's all sedimentary rock. Shale if you will. Trilobite fossils in the next county. The Catskills are a bisected plateau, The Hudson River is a fiord, caused not by erosion, but by a fissure in the mantle. Maybe the Catskills rose as a result of the build up of ice on Greenland. Maybe when ice has gone from the surface we will have major shifting of the continents, AGAIN!

Are we exacerbating a normal warming trend? I dunno. Some say we are beginning a cooling trend. Lawyers, guns and money won't help. None of us knows we will see tomorrow. Chill out, get a life, and LIVE.

It will be gone soon and the North West passage will be open.