She Who Bicycles With Fishes

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

"David L. Johnson" wrote in message
...
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...

In article ,
"David L. Johnson" writes:

I do believe that global warming is a real thing.

So does NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.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

Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:07:31 GMT, 7PEvb.207752$ao4.741429@attbi_s51,
"cheg" 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

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.

"TomP" wrote in message
...
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.

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:07:31 GMT, 7PEvb.207752$ao4.741429@attbi_s51,
"cheg" 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.

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
(_)/ (_) |

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.

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.
(_)/ (_) |