Something for our Global warmers to ponder

[boxy]

Congratulations on a post so retarded, that there can be no answer to it. Bravo, my friend.

[Outlaw Yogi]

, we can see in old maps of 1000 yrs ago where water was over a lot of land we now live on,

Other way round VK, although the loss of land to oceans in the last 7,000 years has been negligible.
18,OOO years ago, at the end of the last glacial maximum/ice age, the oceans were 120 metres lower than they are today.

Don't take my word for it, check for yourself:
MODELLING SHORELINE EVOLUTION ASSOCIATED WITH EARTH GLACIATION
Australia
http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/geo ... /Aust0.htm
Earth
http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/geo ... L/HOME.htm

I doubt very much with what some say about a rise in water levels and land will be flooded,

Every other time the Earth has experienced global warming the oceans rose, so why would it be any different this time?
During one of the major extiction events in Earth's history, ocean levels were several hundred metres higher than now, and atmospheric temperatures were also higher than now.

or that teperature increase of 1.5 degree will kill us, if we can go from 25 one day up to 40 the next and survive, 1.5 won't be felt.

Don't know why you've chosen 1.5 degrees C, seeing as 5 degrees C was considered the disaster threshold causing massive methane release from undersea floor clathrates and tundra permafrosts, in turn causing another 5 degree C rise, leading to a re-run of the Permian extiction scenario ... end of life as we know it.

Admitedly, it seems the temp rise required to thaw frozen methane has been severely underestimated.
Currently atmospheric temps have risen slightly more than 0.7 degrees C and oceanic temps have risen more than 2 but less than 3 degrees C in a century, and the frozen methane is already in melt-down.

[Viking King.]

by Outlaw Yogi on Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:53 pm

Viking King. wrote:
, we can see in old maps of 1000 yrs ago where water was over a lot of land we now live on,
Other way round VK, although the loss of land to oceans in the last 7,000 years has been negligible.
18,OOO years ago, at the end of the last glacial maximum/ice age, the oceans were 120 metres lower than they are today.

Nah nah nah,
I will not dispute what you have there Yogi, clearly a fact,
do you watch "Time Team"? all about finding history of Buried England, they often present old maps and computer image of what it was like 1000-2000-6000 yrs ago, where land was covered with the ocean, now there is a new show called
"Digging up England" last show they found a flint tool they estimated at between 800,000 and 1 mil yrs ago.
Beside the point though.

If the poles were to rapidly melt, it would cause a little trouble but not a great deal I don't think,
as mentioned before, when frozen, water swells, but it has not taken up more space, let it thaw and it is back to were it was, same with the poles, north pole as yet, they have not found land under it, suggesting that it a masive great hole with perhaps 50 miles deep of ice at it's center (perhaps) suggesting that was we see on the surface is a small amount, so therefore the ice will schrink and take up less area, suggesting no flooding.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Well VK, if the Greenland ice sheet melts (which it is currently doing and sliding further toward and into the ocean) completely, ocean levels will rise by 7 metres/24 ft. If Antarctica melts (which large portions of currently are) ocean levels will rise by 60 metres/200 ft.
If they both melt, then it is reasonable to presume that the Arctic and most glaciers will too, so I guesstimate that would add another 30 metres/100 ft.
7 + 60 + 30 = 97 .. so might as well round it off to 100 metres.
Then factoring in expansion of water as it warms = buggered if I know.

I don't doubt that some places, like parts of Britain as you mentioned, were formerly submerged, but such cases buck the trend experienced globally. Although I do doubt that such land gains would be anywhere near the land lost when the land bridge from France to Britain was submerged roughly 7,000 years ago. Would you believe that in that period Britain had lions and rhinos?

If you have an interest in old maps, a Character named Hapgood produced a book (back in 1966 I think) showing a heap of old maps from many countries, which appear to be reproductions of maps that (if genuine) must have been drawn during the ice age.
Another character, Graham Hancock wrote IMO a truely fascinating book titled Underworld, which briefly covers Hancock's maps, and goes into alot of detail regarding large portions of land all over the world being submerged in the 3 global floods since the last ice age.
Some of the underwater photos of reputedly man made structures certainly got the cogs in my head ticking over.

Yonagumi - between Japan and Taiwan

http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/un ... naguni.htm

Note, sites like these have been found off the coasts of India, Egypt, Malta, and probably others I've forgotten.

[Viking King.]

Yogi,
More than 75% at least of what we hear on these type of issues are to scare people,
and why not, we might wake up and smell the coffee,
as mentioned earlier, when water freezes it takes up more space, an iceberg is 90% below water level, therefore what we see moving in Greenland and other places like it, what we see will reduce to less that one third,
if we were to get any flooding from this occuring, even in rapidness, we would not feel it, great chunks 400kms long and 50 wide have broken of the south pole and drifted around under Australia and New Zealand, but we have not had any local flooding caused by it have we?
I personally feel that if heavy rains continue as they did in Queensland, then yes, we will have obvious flooding but eventually it flows out to sea and also absorbed into the ground moving it's way across the heated mantle under the earths crust and out the poles again, but that does not occur over 10 yrs so of thing, that's over a couple or 3 millenia.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Ice bergs melting don't noticeably raise ocean levels due to water displacement, but any large portion of ice above sea level, ie on land, and probably on very large floating ice sheets too, ie parts of the Artic, will raise ocean levels if/when melted.

The water expansion due to warming, is in the tropics and temperate zones, and they cover much larger areas of the planet than the polar regions, so will more than overwhelm any water contraction from ice thawing to cold water.

[TomB]

..... great chunks 400kms long and 50 wide have broken of the south pole and drifted around under Australia and New Zealand, but we have not had any local flooding caused by it have we?

You're on the same stuff as Mellie aren't you? You've obviously been to the same science classes.

[Viking King.]

Ice bergs melting don't noticeably raise ocean levels due to water displacement, but any large portion of ice above sea level, ie on land, and probably on very large floating ice sheets too, ie parts of the Artic, will raise ocean levels if/when melted.

The water expansion due to warming, is in the tropics and temperate zones, and they cover much larger areas of the planet than the polar regions, so will more than overwhelm any water contraction from ice thawing to cold water.

Valid way of looking at it, but lets not forget that the ice packs on land are also full of cracks and caverns and the flowing water under it all helping it to move, of course should it suddenly break loose and charge, yeah, there will be 60 mtr walls of water travelling for many miles such as a tsunami, but that is not a flooding as in the way it is described to us by science and geo's.
As seen the other day, the moving icepack in India is the largest and seen from space, some 40k long and widest point 3k,
bloody big piece if it suddenly slipped into the water.

TomB, no sence adding if it isn't with the conversation man/girl/dude/dudette, whatever you is.

[mellie]

You guys need to ask yourselves why very few artists are willing to write songs about Global warning.

Because like the rest of us, they don't want to look like idiots 20 years from now.

The UN church of climatology want their carbon temple tax, .... 20 years from now it will be like flower-power.

Al Gore = fail



Why not tax all harmful environmental polluters?

[Viking King.]

You guys need to ask yourselves why very few artists are willing to write songs about Global warning.

Because like the rest of us, they don't want to look like idiots 20 years from now.

The UN church of climatology want their carbon temple tax, .... 20 years from now it will be like flower-power.

Al Gore = fail



Why not tax all harmful environmental polluters?

Midnight Oil,,,where are you?