4 ms·

I especially like the graph that shows the daily variation in temperature compared to the likely rise in global average temperature, as if that comparison is a

I especially like the graph that shows the daily variation in temperature compared to the likely rise in global average temperature, as if that comparison is at all relevant. He also doesn't note that, if we end up with "sea levels hundreds of feet higher and in general, GREEN from pole to pole" that a significant number of the world's cities would need to be moved or surrounded by monumental dikes because of the ~200' rise in sea level that would accompany the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves. BILLIONS of people would be displaced. Oh, and he ignores the sea becoming more acidic, causing the likely extinction of most higher sea life as the food chain collapses. Corals are already on the brink worldwide. At least there will still be jellyfish.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
The sea level rise is one of those things I find is over blown by advocates of the anthropogenic hypothesis and under rated by advocates of either the natural variation hypothesis or the non-variance hypothesis. Given that 75% (to a first approximation) of the surface of the planet is ocean, and that ice that is currently in the ocean is already displacing its mass (so not contributory to sea level rise when it melts), lets do a little math. Using a nominal radius of 4,000 miles for the planet (yes its an ellipsoid I know), and only 75% of the surface area is water, we can compute the surface area of the ocean (approximately) as (4/3*pi*4000^3) * .75 = 201,056,640,000 sq miles. Call is 200 billion square miles. And we can convert 200' of sea level rise into miles by using 200 ft / 5280 ft/mi to get .0378 miles. So the volume of water that would have to flow into the ocean is then: 201,056,640,000 * .0378 = 7,599,940,992 miles^3 of water We know ice is 92% the density of water, so its going to take up 8.7% more volume so 7.6x10^9 miles^3 * 1.0869 is a bit more than 8.25 billion cubic miles of ice. Now Wolfram Alpha [2] puts the area of the North American Continent at 9.461 million mi^2, so this ice we're melting, if it were on the north American continent, would cover it to a depth of 8.25 billion / 9.461 million, yes 873 miles. Way out into orbit. I've looked around on Google Earth and can find no ice structures which poke out of the atmosphere :-). But there is an even simpler way to 'check the facts' here. For every foot of sea level rise, we need to melt 1.0869' * (.75/.25) = 3.4' of ice over all of the land in the world. That doesn't sound too bad until you try to figure out how much of the existing land today supports 100% ice holding (which is to say, water which is, but for temperature, permanently locked into ice so glaciers and the poles and the peaks over 12,000') That number is closer to 1% of the total land mass, and that is only .25% of the earths surface area, yes 300' thick ice in those areas for each foot of sea level rise. Bottom line, given what we know of the ice on our planet, if we melt all of it, we'll be lucky to get 20' of sea rise. 200' is completely out of the question unless a comet hits us that is 100 miles in diameter, at which point all bets are off. [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+USA http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+USA [2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+north+america http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+north+america
- GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
  Who's talking about 200 ft rises in sea level? There will be devastating consequences to coastal communities and low lying islands with a sea level rise of less than two feet http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.ht...
  - ChuckMcM 15y ago
    If you look at the post in this thread I was responding too it had this text, "He also doesn't note that, if we end up with "sea levels hundreds of feet higher and in general, GREEN from pole to pole" that a significant number of the world's cities would need to be moved or surrounded by monumental dikes because of the ~200' rise in sea level that would accompany the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves." I saw the '~200'' to mean 'on the order of 200 feet'. I've also heard the 200' number mentioned elsewhere [1][2] and it is complete fiction, there isn't enough water on the planet locked up in ice to raise the oceans 200', if there was we could see it by the way it protruded out of the atmosphere. And sure if Manhattan flooded and we lost most or all of NY City that would be a huge hit to the country, and if we lost all of Bangledesh (estimates of 3M people living at 3' sea level) that would put a huge crimp on the rest of the India to absorb all those refuges and compensate for the lost arable land. Epic human tragedy. My contribution here is simply a mathematical analysis of the more absurd numbers people use because humans have a hard time internalizing very large numbers (like 200 billion square miles of ocean surface). [1] "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice sheets remaining stable. The West Antarctic ice sheet is thought to be potentially unstable, and if it collapsed sea levels around the world would rise almost 20 feet. The melting of the larger and more stable East Antarctic ice sheet would raise Earth's sea levels another 200 feet." - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.ht... [2] " If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing." - http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophys...

ChuckMcM 15y ago

The sea level rise is one of those things I find is over blown by advocates of the anthropogenic hypothesis and under rated by advocates of either the natural variation hypothesis or the non-variance hypothesis. Given that 75% (to a first approximation) of the surface of the planet is ocean, and that ice that is currently in the ocean is already displacing its mass (so not contributory to sea level rise when it melts), lets do a little math. Using a nominal radius of 4,000 miles for the planet (yes its an ellipsoid I know), and only 75% of the surface area is water, we can compute the surface area of the ocean (approximately) as (4/3*pi*4000^3) * .75 = 201,056,640,000 sq miles. Call is 200 billion square miles. And we can convert 200' of sea level rise into miles by using 200 ft / 5280 ft/mi to get .0378 miles. So the volume of water that would have to flow into the ocean is then: 201,056,640,000 * .0378 = 7,599,940,992 miles^3 of water We know ice is 92% the density of water, so its going to take up 8.7% more volume so 7.6x10^9 miles^3 * 1.0869 is a bit more than 8.25 billion cubic miles of ice. Now Wolfram Alpha [2] puts the area of the North American Continent at 9.461 million mi^2, so this ice we're melting, if it were on the north American continent, would cover it to a depth of 8.25 billion / 9.461 million, yes 873 miles. Way out into orbit. I've looked around on Google Earth and can find no ice structures which poke out of the atmosphere :-). But there is an even simpler way to 'check the facts' here. For every foot of sea level rise, we need to melt 1.0869' * (.75/.25) = 3.4' of ice over all of the land in the world. That doesn't sound too bad until you try to figure out how much of the existing land today supports 100% ice holding (which is to say, water which is, but for temperature, permanently locked into ice so glaciers and the poles and the peaks over 12,000') That number is closer to 1% of the total land mass, and that is only .25% of the earths surface area, yes 300' thick ice in those areas for each foot of sea level rise. Bottom line, given what we know of the ice on our planet, if we melt all of it, we'll be lucky to get 20' of sea rise. 200' is completely out of the question unless a comet hits us that is 100 miles in diameter, at which point all bets are off. [1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+USA http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+USA [2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+north+america http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=area+of+north+america

GiraffeNecktie 15y ago
Who's talking about 200 ft rises in sea level? There will be devastating consequences to coastal communities and low lying islands with a sea level rise of less than two feet http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.ht...
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  If you look at the post in this thread I was responding too it had this text, "He also doesn't note that, if we end up with "sea levels hundreds of feet higher and in general, GREEN from pole to pole" that a significant number of the world's cities would need to be moved or surrounded by monumental dikes because of the ~200' rise in sea level that would accompany the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves." I saw the '~200'' to mean 'on the order of 200 feet'. I've also heard the 200' number mentioned elsewhere [1][2] and it is complete fiction, there isn't enough water on the planet locked up in ice to raise the oceans 200', if there was we could see it by the way it protruded out of the atmosphere. And sure if Manhattan flooded and we lost most or all of NY City that would be a huge hit to the country, and if we lost all of Bangledesh (estimates of 3M people living at 3' sea level) that would put a huge crimp on the rest of the India to absorb all those refuges and compensate for the lost arable land. Epic human tragedy. My contribution here is simply a mathematical analysis of the more absurd numbers people use because humans have a hard time internalizing very large numbers (like 200 billion square miles of ocean surface). [1] "What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice sheets remaining stable. The West Antarctic ice sheet is thought to be potentially unstable, and if it collapsed sea levels around the world would rise almost 20 feet. The melting of the larger and more stable East Antarctic ice sheet would raise Earth's sea levels another 200 feet." - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020329072043.ht... [2] " If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing." - http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophys...