Sea level conundrum.

[colly0410 1,181]

As the pacific ocean covers about half the planet, why doesn't all that water sloshing about disrupt the spin of the earth? Wonder if it's because the moon has a calming effect?

[Ayupmeducks 1,730]

It does slosh a bit in a force nine gale...LOL In fact it sloshes a lot.

I like the statement about all the ships raising the water levels, never thought about that before!! I wonder how much we have raised the oceans with all the millions of tons of ships sailing here there and everywhere?? 2mm??

I don't go with global warming, too many studies coming out right now, and predicting ice caps to melt by the year 2000 was absolutely stupid, they actually grew in size and thickness.

A recent study of all the data the global warming crowd put out, has been carried out, and the team who studied it says they missed out one vital fact, there's a third greenhouse gas that none of them took into account, water vapour! Their conclusion was the climate has too many variables to make a realistic weather model to forecast anything from, and there isn't a computer powerful enough on earth at the present time to make a model on. It's so complicated, they cannot accurately forecast tomorrows weather.

I've seen it around here where things have changed dramatically from a forecast fine, mild summer day to tornado warnings and torrential rain.

As many top climate scientists have found, the ones who don't let lies get in the way, many temperature readings have been used from "heat islands" the thermometers used at airports, where temperatures are generall ten to fifteen degrees higher than on open farmland, due to all the concrete and tarmac.

They also say, follow the money, the worst scientific teams rely on government grants, so will report different findings to make sure their grants aren't cut off.

[Ayupmeducks 1,730]

Here's a very good article..http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/1-more-nail-in-coffin-of-global-warming-deception/

[loppylugs 8,429]

Don't know if I want my name on a conspiracy thread, Mick.

Remember we had another guy on NS that was pretty big into conspiracies, but now he doesn't post anymore. Wonder if he went for a ride on a flying saucer. Lol.

Actually I always think conspiracy is the wrong word to use. A conspiracy is a plan by numerous people to bring about an event or blame others for some kind of event. Talk of groups like the Illuminati etc.

What we are talking about on this thread I would call unanswered questions. Conspiracy buff has very negative connotations.

That said it is very tempting to see issues in various assinations, terrorist attacks etc.

[MapperleyMan 122]

MM. Yes, it would definitely overflow if the glass were already full and you dropped some ice in.

But what we are looking at is a hypothetical glass that is already full with water and some ice. The question being, would that glass overflow as the ice melted?

Then, with respect, you are asking the wrong question. And without defining measurements your question cannot be answered anyway. The size of the glass and the volume of water and of ice is necessary to give an answer.

[ValuerJim 277]

When water freezes, its volume expands, which is why cold water pipes burst. So if a glass full of water is allowed to freeze, when it thaws, the ice will return to its original volume as water and, hey presto, a glass full of water! So I say 'global warming? Bring it on', but I live on a hill, so I should be ok.

[loppylugs 8,429]

I really don't think the size of the container would be an issue, whether it is a wine glass or a bucket. The question was, if the container were full to the brim with a mix of ice and water, would it overflow as the ice melted. I wouldn't be dogmatic about it because my science might be shaky, but I do not think it would overflow.

I suppose the best thing to do would be to fill a container with the mix and see what happens. Keep a mop handy just in case. :-). Just like being back in school again.

[Ayupmeducks 1,730]

Well I once drank whiskey with ice, by the time the ice melted the glass was empty.... Where's me 'at and coat>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[The Engineer 614]

SEA LEVEL IS AVERAGE OF HIGH AND LOW TIDES

Sea level is taken as a mean (between high and low tides) and would be the level if the moon didn't cause tides, the wind didn't cause waves, the rivers stopped flowing and the sun stopped evaporating the oceans. All of these variations are why it was measured over a number of years (1915 to 1921 for the UK Ordnance Survey) to get a reasonable average as a reference.

The mean sea level has been rising around an inch per decade for at least the last 100 years. Rise is mostly caused by the water getting warmer (it is expanding). The rest comes from melted snow and ice that wasn't floating (see below for floating ice melt).

The volume of water in the oceans is approximately the same at high tide and low tide - approximate because rivers are flowing at varying rates and ocean water is evaporating to form clouds at varying rates.

MELTING OF FLOATING ICE DOES NOT AFFECT WATER LEVEL

The melting of floating ice does not affect sea level because it continues to displace the same amount of water.

Here's the mathematics with a hypothetical scenario:

1000kg of water at 4 degrees occupies 1 cubic metre.

1000kg of ice at 0 degrees occupies 1.0909 cubic metres.

Let's say we have a 10m x 10m (surface area) swimming pool at 4 degrees and we remove a cubic metre of water (1000kg). The level drops by 1cm. We freeze the water we removed (to 0 degrees) and now have 1000kg of ice. It grew and now has a volume of 1.0909 cubic metres. Its mass is still 1000kg. We put it back into the pool and it displaces 1000kg of water. The level rises 1cm, back to where it was. 1 cubic metre of ice is below water and 90.9 litres (that's 8.3% of the ice) is above the water.

ELECTRONS, HOLES AND CURRENT FLOW

As for electrons, holes and current flow, the jury is not out, the principles are well understood. Early pioneers decided that current flowed from positive to negative and it stuck. When electrons were later discovered, they realised that they had got it wrong - current is actually caused by electrons flowing from negative to positive. To reduce confusion, it was agreed that 'conventional current' still flowed from positive to negative but obviously this didn't fit with the contra-flowing electrons so they invented the notion of 'holes' that were flowing positive to negative.

In vacuum tubes (valves), electrons are emitted from the heated cathode and are attracted to the positive anode. 'Conventional current' still flows from the anode (positive) to the cathode (negative). In cathode ray tubes, electrons are similarly emitted from a heated cathode and are attracted towards the high voltage anode, ultimately striking the phosphorescent coating of the screen causing it to glow. 'Conventional current' is still anode (positive) to cathode (negative). Even in solid state devices, we still have regard for 'conventional current' - the symbol for a diode or an LED is an arrow pointing positive (anode) to negative (cathode).

The Engineer

[loppylugs 8,429]

Thanks Mr. Engineer. That is a good concise explanation of the issues.

[ValuerJim 277]

You've lost me on Electrons, Holes etc, Engineer, but what is the prevalent official view on the relationship between the free (non-floating) ice and the risk of rising sea levels as a result of global warming? Is it a 'steady state' situation?

[The Engineer 614]

Prof. Andrew Shepherd of the National Centre for Earth Observation is a notable expert and contributes to the Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His studies suggest that melting ice from both poles has been responsible for a fifth of the global rise in sea levels since 1992, 11mm in all. Most of the rest (four fifths) was caused by the thermal expansion of the warming oceans and the melting of mountain glaciers. The study is supported by NASA and the European Space Agency.

I think that whilst melting of polar ice caps is only a small contributor to rising sea level, it is the most dramatic cause to use if they are trying to solicit public support (it's easier to photograph or film ice breaking up than to convey the notion that ocean water is warming/expanding).

There seems little doubt that global warming is occurring; the debate is whether human activity has caused it and continues to do so (primarily by generating greenhouse gases). The counter-argument is that the earth and its climate are a bigger picture that we have little control over, that global temperature will always cycle, and that we happen to be in a cycle of warming at present. You pays your money (environmental taxes?) and takes your choice. It is worth noting that even if human activity is to blame, control would have to come from the USA and China, being the biggest generators of carbon dioxide.

The Engineer

[colly0410 1,181]

If we (the UK) stopped burning fossil fuels how much difference would it make to worldwide global warming & sea level rise? Not a lot as the late Paul Daniels would have said. Us Brits shooting ourselves in the foot by ruining our economy with green taxes & whatnot will make zero difference. To me it's like being on a big ship that's sinking & one person (us Brits) baling out with a seaside bucket while all the others party away..

[Beduth 202]

Thanks to all for their valued contribution to the solving of my conundrum. Being a little more enlightened, I think I can now say that the official sea level will not change for some time yet. Perhaps when there is a significant rise, the official sea level will be described as "Sea level + ???mm" or ???m below Everest summit. Problem there is, Himalayas are rising all the time above sea level (but which sea level). No don't start again Beduth.

Try this one: As medical science advances there may come a time when I could have a head transplant.

Question. What would my name be?

Or try this one; Without medical science, if we were all homosexual there would not be any homosexuals!

[loppylugs 8,429]

Head transplant? Who would want one? I'd rather croak!

I'm not going anywhere near the second question. Lol.

[The Engineer 614]

Try this one: As medical science advances there may come a time when I could have a head transplant.

Question. What would my name be?

The concept of "I" or "Me" emanates from the brain. Everything else in your body is just a brain support system. This means that as and when medical science is sufficiently advanced, your head (or your brain) could have a body transplant. You could not have a head transplant. Fret not, you would still be Beduth.

[Beduth 202]

Exactly right 'The Engineer'; my name would be tagged to my head, not my body. The donor body would be nameless. Perhaps I could have a full designer body whilst I'm at it. No, I don't think I would choose female but the jury is still out on that one. It would of coarse give me the opportunity to change my name also!

[Michael Booth 7,364]

I hope everyone's following this.

[ValuerJim 277]

So your entire reason to exist is contained in your head, and the rest of your body is dispensable/interchangeable? I'll have to get my head round that one.

[loppylugs 8,429]

Depends on whether you just see your head and body as a machine, in which any part can be replaced like the cpu in a computer or whether you think there is a spiritual component, which is not bound by the physical.

[mercurydancer 1,104]

The sea level is probably one of the most drastic evaluations of the earth climate. I am not saying that the sea level is not important, it is, but the climate is changing into who knows what.

Possibly the change in subtleties in salinity, El Nino effects may affect us much more than a simple rise in sea level.

[colly0410 1,181]

Not just sea level but atmosphere level could rise as well. it'd expand with the extra heat & the gases at the top of the atmosphere could be blown into space by the solar wind, this could reduce the air pressure at sea level so causing more sea level rise..

[catfan 14,793]

Why worry, we will all be long gone !

[Beduth 202]

And so will many animal species; probably through poaching, avarice and 'blow you jack' on our part.

Anyway up. Will Everest be higher or lower, I still don't know?

[MargieH 7,613]

The height of Everest in metres may be calculated to be lower if sea level rises, but it would still be the same height as always when you start from the foothills or whatever they're called!!