Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #358612 > unrolled thread

Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Fritz Köhler <fritzk@notrenetwork.net> - 2015-07-25 16:59 +0000
    Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Fritz Köhler <fritzk@notrenetwork.net> - 2015-07-25 17:01 +0000
    Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will   rise much faster than predicted Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-26 09:06 +0200
      Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will   rise much faster than predicted R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-26 07:53 +0000
        Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will     rise much faster than predicted Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-29 03:47 +0200
          Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will       rise much faster than predicted Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-01 05:24 +0200
      Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 23:03 +0200
        Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-28 21:22 +0000
    Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 20:55 -0700

#358612 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Sam Wormley wrote:

>    New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>    much faster than predicted
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
faster.html

So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish. Fish 
taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270071.php

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#358614

Fritz Köhler wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
>>    New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>>    much faster than predicted
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
> faster.html
> 
> So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish.
> Fish taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.
> 
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270071.php

Cod liver oil - the forgotten food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqr_XekPts4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358675 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Am 25.07.2015 18:59, schrieb Fritz Köhler:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>     New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>>     much faster than predicted
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
> faster.html
>
> So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish. Fish
> taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.
>

Well, that's not true: higher sea levels do not give more fish.

Reason: the level of water above the sea floor is (on average) very 
large. If this distance would increase a few centimetre, this wouldn't 
extend the living space for fish significantly.

But the sea levels are falling (on average), by a rate of about 4m per 
millennium.

This could be estimated from the current lake near the Airport 
Fiomicino. The Lake Tiberius was formerly the harbour of Rome, but is 
now 8m above sea level.

Since the harbour had sea-level at the time of ancient Rome (roughly 
2000 years ago), the sea-level has fallen by 8 m in 2000 years or 4 m in 
a millennium.

Other ways to estimate the same results would be:
- analysing the age of corals on the current land of atolls
- determine the age of marine fossils on mountains
- hight of ancient harbours above the sea
- age of ocean-related human artefacts in current mountains


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358682 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 25.07.2015 18:59, schrieb Fritz K?hler:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>     New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>>>     much faster than predicted
>>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
>> faster.html
>> So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish. Fish
>> taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.
> Well, that's not true: higher sea levels do not give more fish.
> Reason: the level of water above the sea floor is (on average) very 
> large. If this distance would increase a few centimetre, this wouldn't 
> extend the living space for fish significantly.
> But the sea levels are falling (on average), by a rate of about 4m per 
> millennium.
> This could be estimated from the current lake near the Airport 
> Fiomicino. The Lake Tiberius was formerly the harbour of Rome, but is 
> now 8m above sea level.

Unfortunately your musing don't correlate well with regognised
publications. E.g. the Med SLR reconstruction for the past 150ky is 
<http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/nature11593RapidCoupling.jpg>
(the blue line in lower panel)

This seems to show SL in the Med rose by 4m over the past 25k
years and within the last 1k seems to have flat-lined.

Fimicino is still on the coastline and the city fathers record it
as 1m above sea level.

The port of Hobart, Tasmania, is 10-40m above sea level yet ships 
reach it from the sea every day.

The upper reaches of the Mississippi are 100m above sea level, yet
it could be reached by ship from the sea before various straightening
and lock-building exercises were carried out in the 19th and 20th cent.


> Since the harbour had sea-level at the time of ancient Rome (roughly 
> 2000 years ago), the sea-level has fallen by 8 m in 2000 years or 4 m in 
> a millennium.
> Other ways to estimate the same results would be:
> - analysing the age of corals on the current land of atolls
> - determine the age of marine fossils on mountains
> - hight of ancient harbours above the sea
> - age of ocean-related human artefacts in current mountains


--
Homes Under Threat As Wildfires Rage In West
Sky News, 24 Jul 2015 12:14Z 
Holidaymakers flee and houses are at risk after separate wildfires threaten 
communities in Washington, Montana and California.

Investors could lose $4.2tn because of climate change, report warns ...
The Guardian, 24 Jul 2015 18:12Z 
Investors could lose $4.2tn due to impact of climate change, report warns. 
Investments in fossil fuel companies face serious risk from global warming, 
research by the Economist Intelligence Unit shows. The future is grim for 
private holdings in fossil ...

Witness Talks Huron Tornado
KELOLAND TV, 24 Jul 2015 23:14Z
From funnel cloud to touch down, a Huron woman says she will not forget 
seeing an actual tornado. Thursday night's twister south of Huron near State 
Highway 37 damaged buildings as well as power lines.

'Brain-Eating' Amoeba Reappears in Louisiana Parish's Water Supply
ABC News, 24 Jul 2015 23:16Z 
A potentially deadly amoeba has been found in the water supply of a parish 
outside New Orleans for the second time in two years, officials said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358966 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Am 26.07.2015 18:33, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> This seems to show SL in the Med rose by 4m over the past 25k
>> years and within the last 1k seems to have flat-lined.
>>
>> Fimicino is still on the coastline and the city fathers record it
>> as 1m above sea level.
>>
>> The port of Hobart, Tasmania, is 10-40m above sea level yet ships
>> reach it from the sea every day.
>
> Maybe Tasmanian ships can fly, but Roman ships could not.
>
> Their vessels used to sail upon the surface of the oceans and that's why
> the clever Romans build their ports near water.
>
> Romans didn't like the use of cranes to bring the ships to the moorings,
> hence those had been build sufficiently low.
>
>  From this we can estimate sea-levels at the times, when Portus Romae
> was still in use. Now that level is above the current Mediterranean Sea,
> what is also a few kilometers away from the former harbour.
>
> Now the question: how did that happen?
>
> My assumption. 'Growing Earth' is in fact true, despite otherwise
> accepted believes. This would make sea-levels fall at a slow but
> constant rate (currently: 4m /1000 years).
>
> This is in accordance with observations (of that lake), while other
> explanations (like Plate tectonics) require assumptions about some sort
> of 'lift' (of Italy). This could be the case, but is actually 'out of
> the blue'.
>

Plate tectonics assumes a mechanism called 'subduction'. This would be 
the cause of an uplift of the area, where that harbour is located 
('Eurasian plate') because the African plate is pushing underneath.

But is this a plausible assumption? An uplift of 8m is required, but 
would such a rising landmass leave the area exactly levelled?

The problem is this: the harbour was build horizontal. That was easy for 
the Roman builders, since they could use the Mediterranean Sea as 
reference surface.

But the African plate is certainly not using the sea-levels as guidance 
for its dive into inner Earth, hence would make the lift of Italy 
slightly uneven.

Only this did not happen, as we can see at this lake. The very large 
harbour is still exactly horizontal, (as we can see at the surface of 
that lake).


The idea of 'Growing Earth' is, that spreading causes rifts and valley, 
in which the water flows. This would make sea-levels drop in large 
periods of time.

The harbour of Rome would be one hint in this direction, but not the 
only one. Other harbours of ancient towns have similar characteristics, 
like the harbour of Troy. This harbour is now 30 m above sea-level and 
the water is about 5 km away.

Haitabu is another ancient harbour, were they have found wrecks of 
Viking ships - on land!

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359289 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Am 29.07.2015 03:47, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> From this we can estimate sea-levels at the times, when Portus Romae
>> was still in use. Now that level is above the current Mediterranean Sea,
>> what is also a few kilometers away from the former harbour.
>>
>> Now the question: how did that happen?
>>
>> My assumption. 'Growing Earth' is in fact true, despite otherwise
>> accepted believes. This would make sea-levels fall at a slow but
>> constant rate (currently: 4m /1000 years).
>>
>> This is in accordance with observations (of that lake), while other
>> explanations (like Plate tectonics) require assumptions about some sort
>> of 'lift' (of Italy). This could be the case, but is actually 'out of
>> the blue'.
>>
>
> Plate tectonics assumes a mechanism called 'subduction'. This would be
> the cause of an uplift of the area, where that harbour is located
> ('Eurasian plate') because the African plate is pushing underneath.
>
> But is this a plausible assumption? An uplift of 8m is required, but
> would such a rising landmass leave the area exactly levelled?
>
> The problem is this: the harbour was build horizontal. That was easy for
> the Roman builders, since they could use the Mediterranean Sea as
> reference surface.
>
> But the African plate is certainly not using the sea-levels as guidance
> for its dive into inner Earth, hence would make the lift of Italy
> slightly uneven.
>
> Only this did not happen, as we can see at this lake. The very large
> harbour is still exactly horizontal, (as we can see at the surface of
> that lake).
>


Other former sea-floors are also very horizontal. This would be - at 
least- unusual, if the area is lifted out of the sea by uplift of 
tectonic plates, caused by subduction of another plate.

E.g. the Atacama desert was formerly the bottom of a sea. This is known 
from remains of marine origin.

So the current desert as assumed to be lifted out of the water by 
subduction of the plate underneath the Pacific, what is (according to 
PT) pushing underneath South America.

But wouldn't that make the area tilt.

Actually the desert is not exactly horizontal, but has an angle into the 
opposite direction, since it's higher on the eastern side near the Andes.

The Atacama desert is a good example, because the desert is very dry and 
is so for about 15 million years. So the water went away and the desert 
is what remains. This is almost completely undisturbed by rain for such 
a long time.

This is  know from the analysis of gypsum, what is still there. If it 
had rained at any time more than a few drops, the gypsum would be gone. 
since it's there, the current form of the landscape is not caused by 
erosion.

It looks as if someone pulled out the plug of a (large) bath-tub and let 
the water out.

This would require cracks, where the water can flow out and deeper 
sea-levels, where the water can possibly flow to.

> The idea of 'Growing Earth' is, that spreading causes rifts and valley,
> in which the water flows. This would make sea-levels drop in large
> periods of time.
>
> The harbour of Rome would be one hint in this direction, but not the
> only one. Other harbours of ancient towns have similar characteristics,
> like the harbour of Troy. This harbour is now 30 m above sea-level and
> the water is about 5 km away.
>
> Haitabu is another ancient harbour, were they have found wrecks of
> Viking ships - on land!
>

Best example is actually Troy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

 From the kind of buildings it is easy to see, that Troy was once a port.

Troy was build several times at the same location. This make the ruins 
look like 'onion shells'.

The City looks like being initially built upon a small island. Then the 
water sank and new land could be used to extend the city. Also new 
harbour facilities have been build - slightly deeper and more outside.

Now the city sits on top of a hill and the Mediterranean Sea is a few 
kilometres away. But if it once was a harbour, the sea-level 
four-thousand years ago must have been much higher than today.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358914

Dne 26/07/2015 v 18:49 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com napsal(a):
>>>
>> Poor people cannot do it so easily.
>> For rich people any climate change will never be an issue.
> 
> Sounds backwards to me.
> 
> Poor people generally have little to lose and can't afford to live near
> a beach while rich people have huge investments in beach houses.

Think more before such a shallow conclusion.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#358928

In sci.physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dne 26/07/2015 v 18:49 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com napsal(a):
>>>>
>>> Poor people cannot do it so easily.
>>> For rich people any climate change will never be an issue.
>> 
>> Sounds backwards to me.
>> 
>> Poor people generally have little to lose and can't afford to live near
>> a beach while rich people have huge investments in beach houses.
> 
> Think more before such a shallow conclusion.

Think about what, exactly?

Check house prices along Newport and Malibu beaches.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#359293

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, Fritz Köhler wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> >    New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
> >    much faster than predicted
> >> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
> faster.html
> 
> So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish. Fish 
> taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.
> 
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270071.php

Truth is nobody knows what's going on.  Curious, but I have never heard from environmentalists about total mankind sustenance population.  What number do you think- a trillion?  The Earth can only sustain a trillion people healthily?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web