I can remember a number of years ago seeing a tv program that showed a map of what was "predicted" by people of what the United States was going to look like in the future, and that much of it would be flooded. I have a friend who believes this will happen, and keeps warning me.
I currently live at about 400 feet above sea level, and am moving to over 1000 feet above sea level (not out of fear, but our dream property/house). I can't see how even 400 feet above sea level could be in danger, but this friend insists that the Cascade mountain range will become "islands". Is this even possible?
So here is my question: If ALL the ice on the globe were to melt, and all the moisture in the sky were to fall to the ground, what is the maximum that the sea levels could raise?
I don't want this thread to turn into a pro/con global warming argument, but I am interested in seeing both views.
Globally there is ~ 30,000,000 km3 of ice, representing about 2% of the world's supply of water.
The oceans contain about 1,350,000,000 km3 of water.
Of the ~30,000,000 km3 of ice, the vast majority is on ground.
Melting of floating ice (like the Arctic ice cap) has almost no impact on sea level.
If the ~29,000,000 km3 of ground situated ice melted that would produce ~ 26,000,000 km3 of water.
But ~2,000,000 km3 of the ice in Antarctica is below sea level and thus its melting would have no impact.
Thus ~ 24,000,000 km3 of water would be spread over the ~360,000,000 km2 of ocean area, giving a rise of ~67 meters.
But, the new ocean area would be slightly larger so the rise would be a tad less.
The lowest scientific estimate I've seen is 63 meters.
At even 400 ft above sea level you would be well above the maximum possible rise.
Arthur
The oceans contain about 1,350,000,000 km3 of water.
Of the ~30,000,000 km3 of ice, the vast majority is on ground.
Melting of floating ice (like the Arctic ice cap) has almost no impact on sea level.
If the ~29,000,000 km3 of ground situated ice melted that would produce ~ 26,000,000 km3 of water.
But ~2,000,000 km3 of the ice in Antarctica is below sea level and thus its melting would have no impact.
Thus ~ 24,000,000 km3 of water would be spread over the ~360,000,000 km2 of ocean area, giving a rise of ~67 meters.
But, the new ocean area would be slightly larger so the rise would be a tad less.
The lowest scientific estimate I've seen is 63 meters.
At even 400 ft above sea level you would be well above the maximum possible rise.
Arthur
As long as we're on hypotheticals, how hot would the earth have to be, at say the equator, to melt all the ice at the poles?
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Nov 27 2007, 02:44 AM)
As long as we're on hypotheticals, how hot would the earth have to be, at say the equator, to melt all the ice at the poles?
Since we are talking hypotheticals,
Im not sure its as simple as the temp at the equator, but my understanding a few years back was that if the overall global average increased by just 3 degrees, there would be trouble. (someone will disagree, Im sure) But the real immediate problem isnt as much sea level rise, imo, but in less obvious problems. For example, the spread of tropical disease into traditionally non-tropical areas. Imagine yellow fever in St Louis. Another concern is what crops will grow where. I recently read about concern in France with growing grapes for wine. A very small variation in temps is a big issue for grapes. That may not be something that seems serious unless you are a grape grower or a wino, but parts of the french economy would struggle if the wine growers couldnt do what they do. My point is that the more indirect results may be the bigger problem.
Regardless of the cause, it looks like we could be in for some suffering. We have come to depend on our ability to produce very large amounts of food. If that system gets seriously disrupted, people will starve.
As a side note, whatever happened to people being concerned about pollution? You know, smog and toxic waste and superfund sites? It seems as if the global warming "dispute" has allowed the "proven" problems to go unchecked. For example, as predicted, much of the water supply in the US is compromised. But have you ever see a poor person buy a bottle of evian?
Since we are talking hypotheticals,
Im not sure its as simple as the temp at the equator, but my understanding a few years back was that if the overall global average increased by just 3 degrees, there would be trouble. (someone will disagree, Im sure) But the real immediate problem isnt as much sea level rise, imo, but in less obvious problems. For example, the spread of tropical disease into traditionally non-tropical areas. Imagine yellow fever in St Louis. Another concern is what crops will grow where. I recently read about concern in France with growing grapes for wine. A very small variation in temps is a big issue for grapes. That may not be something that seems serious unless you are a grape grower or a wino, but parts of the french economy would struggle if the wine growers couldnt do what they do. My point is that the more indirect results may be the bigger problem.
Regardless of the cause, it looks like we could be in for some suffering. We have come to depend on our ability to produce very large amounts of food. If that system gets seriously disrupted, people will starve.
As a side note, whatever happened to people being concerned about pollution? You know, smog and toxic waste and superfund sites? It seems as if the global warming "dispute" has allowed the "proven" problems to go unchecked. For example, as predicted, much of the water supply in the US is compromised. But have you ever see a poor person buy a bottle of evian?
QUOTE (occidental+Nov 26 2007, 10:37 PM)
I recently read about concern in France with growing grapes for wine.
I can't imagine a world without WINE!
Thanks Arthur, that was what I was looking for. You said the "lowest" you had seen of a scientific study was 63? Is there a highest estimate? Not that I expect it much higher. Just curious as to how much water there really IS on the planet.
Oh, and BTW, I never was concerned about MY safety.
I believe this stuff even less than global warming. Not even sure why I put in the elevations of my home? Other than I am curious as to how these people think the globe could ever flood that high..... That is a LOT of water!
I can't imagine a world without WINE!Thanks Arthur, that was what I was looking for. You said the "lowest" you had seen of a scientific study was 63? Is there a highest estimate? Not that I expect it much higher. Just curious as to how much water there really IS on the planet.
Oh, and BTW, I never was concerned about MY safety.
I believe this stuff even less than global warming. Not even sure why I put in the elevations of my home? Other than I am curious as to how these people think the globe could ever flood that high..... That is a LOT of water!
Whenever I see stuff like that, I never really take it seriously. Take the bird flu threat: The media just found a story and told us the worst case scenario, acting as if it was really going to occur. They predicted billions of casualties, but so far we haven't had any seriously threatening epidemics (As far as I know.... ). Global warming probably will have some nasty effects, but none as drastic as the media says.
But the loss of wine has really got me thinking now .
- Gehn
But the loss of wine has really got me thinking now
.- Gehn
QUOTE
I can't imagine a world without WINE!
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think Robin is here to stay.
QUOTE ("THEY"+Nov 27 2007, 03:05 PM)
Thanks Arthur, that was what I was looking for. You said the "lowest" you had seen of a scientific study was 63? Is there a highest estimate? Not that I expect it much higher. Just curious as to how much water there really IS on the planet.
You're welcome.
The high number was in the calculations, 67 meters.
That's derived by taking the melt water and spreading it across the existing surface area of the oceans.
BUT, if all that ice melted the AREA of the oceans would expand, thus the melt water would cause a slightly smaller rise.
The exact amount of rise is very difficult to know because you have to take in the topology of all the coastlines on the planet.
As to the LIKELYHOOD of this happening, lets put it in perspective, the ice on Antarctica has been there for over 14 MILLION years.
The IPCC, in their 2001 report, looked at the issue and estimated that it would take over 10,000 years with an average global temp increase of 20 C.
Arthur
You're welcome.
The high number was in the calculations, 67 meters.
That's derived by taking the melt water and spreading it across the existing surface area of the oceans.
BUT, if all that ice melted the AREA of the oceans would expand, thus the melt water would cause a slightly smaller rise.
The exact amount of rise is very difficult to know because you have to take in the topology of all the coastlines on the planet.
As to the LIKELYHOOD of this happening, lets put it in perspective, the ice on Antarctica has been there for over 14 MILLION years.
The IPCC, in their 2001 report, looked at the issue and estimated that it would take over 10,000 years with an average global temp increase of 20 C.
Arthur
QUOTE (occidental+Nov 27 2007, 12:49 PM)
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think Robin is here to stay.
Isn't that spelled WHINE?
Just for once, I would like to see some crank science on tv that actually is somewhat credible, instead of this outlandish oceans raising 2000 feet bla bla... Oh, THATS RIGHT, there IS crank science that is somewhat based on realism, its called GLOBAL WARMING. That also happens to be happening on Mars and Venus. Guess we need to quit selling SUVs to Martians and Vesuvians.
Oh, and on bird flu momentarily, aren't ALL flu strains potentially a harm to crossing over to humans? That IS where they come from afterall. So I will just quit kissing ducks and swine.
We were talking about global warming over a wonderful turkey dinner the other day... and my brother brought up that we were in school the big scare of the time was global cooling. We were all going into an ice age, and it scared him because he hates the cold. So the fact is they don't know.......
But now at least when someone says the seas will rise and even my house at 1200 feet elevation will be at risk of submerging (or maybe turning into waterfront property) I can say that there is only enough frozen water on the planet to raise the seas 150 - 200 feet. And I still think even that number is high, but I trust Arthur.
edit - oops, just missed you arthur!
It sounds like you are describing a show based on Gordon Michael Scallion's "Earth Changes." These are predictions based on his visions of a pole shift, not Global Warming.
HTH
http://www.earthchanges.com/
HTH
http://www.earthchanges.com/
QUOTE (John A+Nov 27 2007, 02:53 PM)
It sounds like you are describing a show based on Gordon Michael Scallion's "Earth Changes." These are predictions based on his visions of a pole shift, not Global Warming.
HTH
http://www.earthchanges.com/
Hi John!
That very well could be what I saw on tv MANY years ago, and what my friend believes.
But still the question rises, is it even physically possible? Even if the poles shift, is there a change in gravity (or something) that could raise the water levels THAT high? I am assuming he is talking about somehow the earth wobbling on its current axis, not the magnetic poles shifting......... That website is a little lacking in information.
HTH
http://www.earthchanges.com/
Hi John!
That very well could be what I saw on tv MANY years ago, and what my friend believes.
But still the question rises, is it even physically possible? Even if the poles shift, is there a change in gravity (or something) that could raise the water levels THAT high? I am assuming he is talking about somehow the earth wobbling on its current axis, not the magnetic poles shifting......... That website is a little lacking in information.
QUOTE
QUOTE (occidental @ Nov 27 2007, 12:49 PM)
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think Robin is here to stay.
Isn't that spelled WHINE?
Whoops, sorry-yes it is.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think Robin is here to stay.
Isn't that spelled WHINE?
Re Sea Level rise.
As per the last IPCC report the sea level rise was reported as 1.8 mm per year for the latter half of the 20th century.
Of course one of the major problems is how do you tell if the oceans are rising when the land itself is not stationary?
To the rescue comes GPS measurements.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...ed3c76f3b9dc3fe
Using GPS measurements to correct for Post Glacial Rebound they were able to correct the sea level measurements and reduce the overall amount of error.
The new values are 1.3 mm per year (a ~30% decrease over the IPCC figures).
Arthur
As per the last IPCC report the sea level rise was reported as 1.8 mm per year for the latter half of the 20th century.
Of course one of the major problems is how do you tell if the oceans are rising when the land itself is not stationary?
To the rescue comes GPS measurements.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...ed3c76f3b9dc3fe
Using GPS measurements to correct for Post Glacial Rebound they were able to correct the sea level measurements and reduce the overall amount of error.
The new values are 1.3 mm per year (a ~30% decrease over the IPCC figures).
Arthur
Looks like a few of the posters here are in for big surprises.
Emission theory is proving to be incorrect
but Global Climate Change is happening
and now no one really knows what is going on
and therefore the future is entirely unknown
Ice Age IMO, and a massive "entire Earth" one at that
Emission theory is proving to be incorrect
but Global Climate Change is happening
and now no one really knows what is going on
and therefore the future is entirely unknown
Ice Age IMO, and a massive "entire Earth" one at that
In Water World ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/ ) the water rose until ---- oops never mind, I don't want to spoil the ending.
Global Warming is bad for rich people's homes, good for plants.
I propose we release all the carbon dioxide in the White Ciffs of Dover for the good of the plants around the world.
Lovers of Ivy Unite!!!
Eat Beans, Emit Methane!!
Actually, the worst case scenario for Global Warming is the associated massive release of Methane from the Ocean deposits of Methane Hydrate, which has (theoretically) caused Global Warming related extinction events in the past.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Trias...xtinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eoc...Thermal_Maximum
But, before all that we will probably get the Yellowstone Supervolcano, or hit by one or more of the NEO's scheduled to possibly hit us (6 between now and 2010) ( http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ ), or the super comet in 2012, or Hillory Clinton may get elected.
Or, you may get hit by lightening (and if you get hit twice, you have the same odds as winning the lottery)
I just collect this stuff. Don't know what it means.
Global Warming is bad for rich people's homes, good for plants.
I propose we release all the carbon dioxide in the White Ciffs of Dover for the good of the plants around the world.
Lovers of Ivy Unite!!!
Eat Beans, Emit Methane!!
Actually, the worst case scenario for Global Warming is the associated massive release of Methane from the Ocean deposits of Methane Hydrate, which has (theoretically) caused Global Warming related extinction events in the past.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Trias...xtinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eoc...Thermal_Maximum
But, before all that we will probably get the Yellowstone Supervolcano, or hit by one or more of the NEO's scheduled to possibly hit us (6 between now and 2010) ( http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ ), or the super comet in 2012, or Hillory Clinton may get elected.
Or, you may get hit by lightening (and if you get hit twice, you have the same odds as winning the lottery)
I just collect this stuff. Don't know what it means.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.