Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Rising Sea Levels

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:35:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm just a little interested in the subjects of 'man made global warming' and 'rising sea levels.' I can completely accept that mankind (civilization) can have and maybe has had an affect on the Earth's climate.

What I am hoping to explore is the formula's used to calculate our aggregate impact.

My starting point is this simple formula:

Total Impact - Natural Causes = Man Made causes

Anyone?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 12:46:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 11:16:03 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
http://images.iop.org...

Nice graph.... but what about the formulas and data that was used?

Also, as the title of this thread indicates - I am most interested in the observations about Sea Levels.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 12:46:09 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 11:16:03 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
http://images.iop.org...

Nice graph.... but what about the formulas and data that was used?

http://www.nature.com...


Also, as the title of this thread indicates - I am most interested in the observations about Sea Levels.

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 3:09:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.

Hmmmm.

Not exactly what I was looking for.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 6:02:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 3:09:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.

Hmmmm.

Not exactly what I was looking for.

Well then... learn to use google.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 6:02:41 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 3:09:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.

Hmmmm.

Not exactly what I was looking for.

Well then... learn to use google.

Yeah, well I tried that first.

I'll just cut to the chase.

It's easy to find data on how sea levels may be rising as a result from the melting ice caps - at least partially caused by industrialized civilization and some even mention the tectonic plates.

However, there is no mention in any of the data that I am finding about the tremendous amount of water being displaced by the massive fleets of ships, subs (both still floating and sank) land expansions efforts (man made islands and expanded shores) illegal and incidental dumping, commercial fishing contraptions, etc.

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 5:28:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:02:41 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 3:09:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.

Hmmmm.

Not exactly what I was looking for.

Well then... learn to use google.

Yeah, well I tried that first.

I'll just cut to the chase.

It's easy to find data on how sea levels may be rising as a result from the melting ice caps - at least partially caused by industrialized civilization and some even mention the tectonic plates.

However, there is no mention in any of the data that I am finding about the tremendous amount of water being displaced by the massive fleets of ships, subs (both still floating and sank) land expansions efforts (man made islands and expanded shores) illegal and incidental dumping, commercial fishing contraptions, etc.

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

Can you link to this data? That is fascinating! I have database access, so I can search for you if you send me what you have.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:10:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yeah, well I tried that first.

I'll just cut to the chase.

It's easy to find data on how sea levels may be rising as a result from the melting ice caps - at least partially caused by industrialized civilization and some even mention the tectonic plates.

However, there is no mention in any of the data that I am finding about the tremendous amount of water being displaced by the massive fleets of ships, subs (both still floating and sank) land expansions efforts (man made islands and expanded shores) illegal and incidental dumping, commercial fishing contraptions, etc.

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

You're leaving out the largest factors and the indirect factors of sea level rise.

1. Icecaps have no effect on sea level rise if they are already in the ocean - this is because they displace water even if they are still solid. Most of Antarctica is already sitting on top of water, so it is irrelevant to sea level rise. Greenland - the second largest global accumulation of ice, is majorly located on land, so as it melts, it fills the oceans.

2. As salt water gets warmer, it fills more space. As the temperature of the oceans increase, the water will expand, thus sea level rise.

As far as indirect factors.

1. Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are pumped into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels. There are naturally producing sources of these two compounds, but they only constitute a minute portion of the gases being added to the atmosphere. The combustion of fossil fuels is man-made, the bi-products of this process erode the compound ozone which acts as a reflector of our sun's rays. As more sunlight enters our atmosphere, our globe heats up. Given that ~72% of the world is covered in water, the oceans absorb the brunt of this climate change. Man-made actions having global consequences.

The man-made alterations and contraptions you listed have extremely minimal effect compared to the first two reasons I listed. The effect of each is almost negligible compared to the larger picture.

Ultimately, you're not going to find a formula for those because they don't really matter in terms of sea level rise. The equation for sea level rise is muddled enough as is because it's dependent on so many factors and those factors keep changing. China keeps dumping more and more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap sunlight within the atmosphere at an exponential rate, etc...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:30:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 5:28:49 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:02:41 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 3:09:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.

Hmmmm.

Not exactly what I was looking for.

Well then... learn to use google.

Yeah, well I tried that first.

I'll just cut to the chase.

It's easy to find data on how sea levels may be rising as a result from the melting ice caps - at least partially caused by industrialized civilization and some even mention the tectonic plates.

However, there is no mention in any of the data that I am finding about the tremendous amount of water being displaced by the massive fleets of ships, subs (both still floating and sank) land expansions efforts (man made islands and expanded shores) illegal and incidental dumping, commercial fishing contraptions, etc.

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

Can you link to this data? That is fascinating! I have database access, so I can search for you if you send me what you have.

No, I have no data on this. It just occurred to me the other day that none of the news stories that I see talking about 'rising sea levels' ever take displacement into account.

To me, that's a big (expletive omitted) oops.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:35:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:10:29 PM, Praesentya wrote:
Yeah, well I tried that first.

I'll just cut to the chase.

It's easy to find data on how sea levels may be rising as a result from the melting ice caps - at least partially caused by industrialized civilization and some even mention the tectonic plates.

However, there is no mention in any of the data that I am finding about the tremendous amount of water being displaced by the massive fleets of ships, subs (both still floating and sank) land expansions efforts (man made islands and expanded shores) illegal and incidental dumping, commercial fishing contraptions, etc.

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

You're leaving out the largest factors and the indirect factors of sea level rise.

1. Icecaps have no effect on sea level rise if they are already in the ocean - this is because they displace water even if they are still solid. Most of Antarctica is already sitting on top of water, so it is irrelevant to sea level rise. Greenland - the second largest global accumulation of ice, is majorly located on land, so as it melts, it fills the oceans.

2. As salt water gets warmer, it fills more space. As the temperature of the oceans increase, the water will expand, thus sea level rise.

As far as indirect factors.

1. Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are pumped into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels. There are naturally producing sources of these two compounds, but they only constitute a minute portion of the gases being added to the atmosphere. The combustion of fossil fuels is man-made, the bi-products of this process erode the compound ozone which acts as a reflector of our sun's rays. As more sunlight enters our atmosphere, our globe heats up. Given that ~72% of the world is covered in water, the oceans absorb the brunt of this climate change. Man-made actions having global consequences.

The man-made alterations and contraptions you listed have extremely minimal effect compared to the first two reasons I listed. The effect of each is almost negligible compared to the larger picture.

Somehow I knew that was coming.

Still, I would like to know (sooner rather than later) what percentage of rising sea levels can be attributed something that we can actually measure and not just speculate about.

"Displacement"


Ultimately, you're not going to find a formula for those because they don't really matter in terms of sea level rise. The equation for sea level rise is muddled enough as is because it's dependent on so many factors and those factors keep changing. China keeps dumping more and more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap sunlight within the atmosphere at an exponential rate, etc...

I would like to see the actual data before I decide (for myself) if it matters or not.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:02:41 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 3:09:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.

Hmmmm.

Not exactly what I was looking for.

Well then... learn to use google.

Yeah, well I tried that first.

I'll just cut to the chase.

It's easy to find data on how sea levels may be rising as a result from the melting ice caps - at least partially caused by industrialized civilization and some even mention the tectonic plates.

However, there is no mention in any of the data that I am finding about the tremendous amount of water being displaced by the massive fleets of ships, subs (both still floating and sank) land expansions efforts (man made islands and expanded shores) illegal and incidental dumping, commercial fishing contraptions, etc.

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

Well, a major problem I see with your displacement theory is that there are roughly 321 million cubic miles of water in the ocean, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. (http://water.usgs.gov...) 0.04 percent of that is 128,400 cubic miles. To displace water, something must be submerged in the water; it cannot be above it. So, that would mean that whatever we've placed in the water covers a space of 128,400 cubic miles in order to result in a 0.04 percent increase in overall sea levels on the planet. That would mean that if we were to lift humanity's entire contribution to the composite of the ocean into the air, it would be 128.4 thousand miles across and 128.4 thousand miles high. To put that in perspective, the moon is about 238,900 miles away, so in other words, it would be a chunk of garbage, naval ships, submarines, fishing contraptions, and land expansions that would reach halfway to the moon.

Do you really believe that?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 7:22:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM, Such wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:02:41 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 3:09:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:10:57 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:51:26 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Rising sea levels is caused by increasing temperatures.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Ergo whatever causes the latter indirectly causes the former.

One would think so, but again there are some other things going on too - like the movement of the tectonic plates. Hopefully your websites that you linked to will have something on that.

Hmmmm.

Not exactly what I was looking for.

Well then... learn to use google.

Yeah, well I tried that first.

I'll just cut to the chase.

It's easy to find data on how sea levels may be rising as a result from the melting ice caps - at least partially caused by industrialized civilization and some even mention the tectonic plates.

However, there is no mention in any of the data that I am finding about the tremendous amount of water being displaced by the massive fleets of ships, subs (both still floating and sank) land expansions efforts (man made islands and expanded shores) illegal and incidental dumping, commercial fishing contraptions, etc.

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

Well, a major problem I see with your displacement theory is that there are roughly 321 million cubic miles of water in the ocean, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. (http://water.usgs.gov...) 0.04 percent of that is 128,400 cubic miles. To displace water, something must be submerged in the water; it cannot be above it. So, that would mean that whatever we've placed in the water covers a space of 128,400 cubic miles in order to result in a 0.04 percent increase in overall sea levels on the planet. That would mean that if we were to lift humanity's entire contribution to the composite of the ocean into the air, it would be 128.4 thousand miles across and 128.4 thousand miles high. To put that in perspective, the moon is about 238,900 miles away, so in other words, it would be a chunk of garbage, naval ships, submarines, fishing contraptions, and land expansions that would reach halfway to the moon.

Do you really believe that?

You are right in displacement not being credible, but your maths is a bit off.

128,000 cubic miles isn't 128k x 128k x 128k, that would be about 2 quadrillion cubic miles.

128,000 cubic miles would be a cube measuring about 50x50x50 miles.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 7:44:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 7:22:31 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM, Such wrote:

128,000 cubic miles would be a cube measuring about 50x50x50 miles.

You're right! You got me. I totally flew off the concept of a cubic mile there. I happens. ^_^ Thanks for the correction.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:37:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM, Such wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

Well, a major problem I see with your displacement theory is that there are roughly 321 million cubic miles of water in the ocean, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. (http://water.usgs.gov...) 0.04 percent of that is 128,400 cubic miles.

Okay.

To displace water, something must be submerged in the water; it cannot be above it. So, that would mean that whatever we've placed in the water covers a space of 128,400 cubic miles in order to result in a 0.04 percent increase in overall sea levels on the planet.

Are you claiming (incorrectly) that ships are not displacing any water when they are afloat? Because you should know that they do displace at least the volume of the portion that is below the water's surface and (I believe) you can add to that some of the amount being displaced when the vessel is in motion and is creating a wake.

That would mean that if we were to lift humanity's entire contribution to the composite of the ocean into the air, it would be 128.4 thousand miles across and 128.4 thousand miles high. To put that in perspective, the moon is about 238,900 miles away, so in other words, it would be a chunk of garbage, naval ships, submarines, fishing contraptions, (add plane crashes) and land expansions that would reach halfway to the moon.

Do you really believe that?

Thankfully someone else caught your mathematical error in that. Again, I would like to see the Raw data and then decide for myself if it's significant or not.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 11:59:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 7:22:31 AM, Ramshutu wrote:

128,000 cubic miles would be a cube measuring about 50x50x50 miles.

Thanks for you checking that - I probably wouldn't have done the math, myself.

I found this image of one sqaure mile compared to the Eiffel Tower.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

I can appreciate that comparatively - we are talking about an enormous amount of volume of displacement to reach the point that it would be reflected in Sea Levels.

However, if the laws of physics are to be taken seriously? We have to acknowledge that whatever mankind's total volume in contributions are... that they would have an equal and opposite effect in the way of displacement.

Remember, I am not claiming that the total volume of displacement caused by mankind can account for the full .04 percent rise in sea levels. I still accept that melting ice, tectonic plates and even falling space debris plays a role too.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 12:01:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:37:26 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM, Such wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

Well, a major problem I see with your displacement theory is that there are roughly 321 million cubic miles of water in the ocean, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. (http://water.usgs.gov...) 0.04 percent of that is 128,400 cubic miles.

Okay.

To displace water, something must be submerged in the water; it cannot be above it. So, that would mean that whatever we've placed in the water covers a space of 128,400 cubic miles in order to result in a 0.04 percent increase in overall sea levels on the planet.

Are you claiming (incorrectly) that ships are not displacing any water when they are afloat? Because you should know that they do displace at least the volume of the portion that is below the water's surface and (I believe) you can add to that some of the amount being displaced when the vessel is in motion and is creating a wake.

That would mean that if we were to lift humanity's entire contribution to the composite of the ocean into the air, it would be 128.4 thousand miles across and 128.4 thousand miles high. To put that in perspective, the moon is about 238,900 miles away, so in other words, it would be a chunk of garbage, naval ships, submarines, fishing contraptions, (add plane crashes) and land expansions that would reach halfway to the moon.

Do you really believe that?


Thankfully someone else caught your mathematical error in that. Again, I would like to see the Raw data and then decide for myself if it's significant or not.

Please don't think that correcting a mathematical error lends any credence to this point. It is simply laughable.

There is 332,519,000 cubic miles of water in the ocean. Even if you take 0.01%, that's 33,252 cubic miles. Heck, lets go lower, 0.001% and say 3000 cubic miles of water.

That works out as 12,279,533,342,600 tonnes.

The largest ship in terms of displacement is the Seawise Giant, or 657,019 tonnes of displacement. (that's a shade over 10 times that of the titanic).

You would need 18 million of them to displace the ocean by 0.001%.

Thinking would be good.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 12:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And coincidently, while it takes 18 million of the largest ships ever built to effectively raise the volume of water in the ocean by 0.001%, you can get an 0.02% increase in the volume of water by raising its temperature by 1 degree.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 12:11:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:37:26 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM, Such wrote:

To displace water, something must be submerged in the water; it cannot be above it. So, that would mean that whatever we've placed in the water covers a space of 128,400 cubic miles in order to result in a 0.04 percent increase in overall sea levels on the planet.

Are you claiming (incorrectly) that ships are not displacing any water when they are afloat? Because you should know that they do displace at least the volume of the portion that is below the water's surface and (I believe) you can add to that some of the amount being displaced when the vessel is in motion and is creating a wake.


I have to correct myself on this too. It seems that a floating vessel displaces it's own entire weight in water - even when floating. Something I probably knew before but since forgot.

http://www.answerbag.com...

So, the amount of water being displaced by our fleets of floating vessels, sunken vessels, subs, crashed planes, waste, etc... is directly related to the WEIGHT of it all. when floating and by the volume (not the weight) of itself once submerged.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 12:21:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 12:01:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Please don't think that correcting a mathematical error lends any credence to this point. It is simply laughable.

For ever action, there is an equal an opposite reaction - correct?

That means that human caused displacement is (however great or small) a contributing factor in the overall rise in sea levels - True or False?

There is 332,519,000 cubic miles of water in the oceans. Even if you take 0.01%, that's 33,252 cubic miles. Heck, lets go lower, 0.001% and say 3000 cubic miles of water.

That works out as 12,279,533,342,600 tonnes.

The largest ship in terms of displacement is the Seawise Giant, or 657,019 tonnes of displacement. (that's a shade over 10 times that of the titanic).

You would need 18 million of them to displace the ocean by 0.001%.

Thinking would be good.

You make some great observations, but I would still like to know what the total (expected) amount of displacement actually caused by mankind actually is.

Does my want to know and my want to acknowledge that information offend you somehow?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 12:49:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 12:21:04 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/26/2014 12:01:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Please don't think that correcting a mathematical error lends any credence to this point. It is simply laughable.

For ever action, there is an equal an opposite reaction - correct?

That means that human caused displacement is (however great or small) a contributing factor in the overall rise in sea levels - True or False?

If I swim in the ocean, the sea levels rise.

Just because it rises does not mean it is a "contributing factor" in any meaningful sense of the word.

There is 332,519,000 cubic miles of water in the oceans. Even if you take 0.01%, that's 33,252 cubic miles. Heck, lets go lower, 0.001% and say 3000 cubic miles of water.

That works out as 12,279,533,342,600 tonnes.

The largest ship in terms of displacement is the Seawise Giant, or 657,019 tonnes of displacement. (that's a shade over 10 times that of the titanic).

You would need 18 million of them to displace the ocean by 0.001%.

Thinking would be good.

You make some great observations, but I would still like to know what the total (expected) amount of displacement actually caused by mankind actually is.

Does my want to know and my want to acknowledge that information offend you somehow?

That depends, on whether your asking out of interest, or you are asking because you believe you're point is still valid? If it's the latter, you are simply not using your brain and that always offends me.

But as you clearly do not beleive that requiring 18,000,000 of the largest ships in the world to get 1/40th of the tiny displacement you are talking about is enough to shoot your theory out of the water, take a look at this:

http://unctad.org...

The estimated total tonnage of ALL commercial shipping (so not small boats, or military, including ferries, tankers, goods boats, ) is 1,396,000,000 tonnes.

Lets add 2 zero's to that to account for all remaining boats. That's 100 times more displacement than the combined sum of all the bulkiest bulk ships. Thats 33 cubic miles. Which is probably a gross over estimate.

There are 139,000,000 Square miles of ocean.

That means 33 cubic miles applied to the whole thing would work out to about 0.015 inches. Or the thickness of about 4 sheets of paper.

In reality, the total tonnage is most realistically only about 2/3 times the gross tonnage of the massive ships mentioned here, and most of that will be down to miltary ships. That works out at about 0.0004 inches or 10.16 micrometers: About the thickness of a human hair.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:08:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 11:37:26 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM, Such wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:19:47 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

No-doubt that someone will try to claim that all those things in total would be insignificant. I would counter by saying that a .04 percent total increase is not very significant (at least to me) either.

Well, a major problem I see with your displacement theory is that there are roughly 321 million cubic miles of water in the ocean, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. (http://water.usgs.gov...) 0.04 percent of that is 128,400 cubic miles.

Okay.

To displace water, something must be submerged in the water; it cannot be above it. So, that would mean that whatever we've placed in the water covers a space of 128,400 cubic miles in order to result in a 0.04 percent increase in overall sea levels on the planet.

Are you claiming (incorrectly) that ships are not displacing any water when they are afloat? Because you should know that they do displace at least the volume of the portion that is below the water's surface and (I believe) you can add to that some of the amount being displaced when the vessel is in motion and is creating a wake.

No, my fellow thimble, I'm suggesting that most of the land expansions man has made are above water, not floating on it or whatever you must think.

That would mean that if we were to lift humanity's entire contribution to the composite of the ocean into the air, it would be 128.4 thousand miles across and 128.4 thousand miles high. To put that in perspective, the moon is about 238,900 miles away, so in other words, it would be a chunk of garbage, naval ships, submarines, fishing contraptions, (add plane crashes) and land expansions that would reach halfway to the moon.

Do you really believe that?


Thankfully someone else caught your mathematical error in that. Again, I would like to see the Raw data and then decide for myself if it's significant or not.

Well, my error was that I simply jumped from the overall displacement to the size of the displacement of water that it would produce. As it pertains to my overall point, it's negligible. The water wouldn't reach halfway to the moon, but it would still be fifty miles into the air. The Karman line (basically, the boundary to outer space) is about 62 miles from the surface of the earth, so you're still looking at an astounding amount of water.

How astounding, you may ask?

Well, lets look at some more "raw data," since Ramshutu's illustrations didn't suffice for you (18 million of our utmost largest ship in the ocean all at once).

One cubic mile of water weighs 105,000 tons. http://wiki.answers.com...

So, 128,000 cubic miles weigh 13,440,000,000 tons.

Humans would need to put approximately 13.5 billion tons of crap in the ocean to increase it's overall levels by 0.04 percent.

The trash in the Ocean is sadly around 7 million tons. http://garbagepatch.net...

That is a serious issue, but not one that would affect the ocean level.

If every ship in the ocean were removed, it would raise the ocean level about six microns: https://what-if.xkcd.com...

About 35 airplanes have crashed into the ocean ever: http://en.wikipedia.org...

That's 6 tons per aircraft on average for large aircraft (so, we're overestimating, here), which results in an overwhelming 70 tons contribution of displacement.

So, there's your raw data, how one measures cubic miles notwithstanding.

But, by all means, belittle someone giving you the information you so desperately desire because I forgot a small step in my figures while illustrating something massive for you. Does it really make a difference whether it would stretch into the ionosphere or halfway to the moon? It would, in any case, be the largest object you've ever seen in your life.

I could have just called you an idiot.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:17:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 12:49:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 12:21:04 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/26/2014 12:01:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Please don't think that correcting a mathematical error lends any credence to this point. It is simply laughable.

For ever action, there is an equal an opposite reaction - correct?

That means that human caused displacement is (however great or small) a contributing factor in the overall rise in sea levels - True or False?

If I swim in the ocean, the sea levels rise.

Just because it rises does not mean it is a "contributing factor" in any meaningful sense of the word.


The jury is still out on that - as far as I am concerned.

There is 332,519,000 cubic miles of water in the oceans. Even if you take 0.01%, that's 33,252 cubic miles. Heck, lets go lower, 0.001% and say 3000 cubic miles of water.

That works out as 12,279,533,342,600 tonnes.

The largest ship in terms of displacement is the Seawise Giant, or 657,019 tonnes of displacement. (that's a shade over 10 times that of the titanic).

You would need 18 million of them to displace the ocean by 0.001%.

Thinking would be good.

You make some great observations, but I would still like to know what the total (expected) amount of displacement actually caused by mankind actually is.

Does my want to know and my want to acknowledge that information offend you somehow?

That depends, on whether your asking out of interest, or you are asking because you believe you're point is still valid?

I am genuinely interested and the validity of the point is subjective. I am not claiming anything at this point. I am only seeking the information.

If it's the latter, you are simply not using your brain and that always offends me.


But I have been using my brain. Are you even a little bit interested in how much water has been displaced by civilizations over the years that we have been putting things in the oceans?

But as you clearly do not beleive that requiring 18,000,000 of the largest ships in the world to get 1/40th of the tiny displacement you are talking about is enough to shoot your theory out of the water, take a look at this:

http://unctad.org...


I didn't dispute your math, your data, nor your estimations.

The estimated total tonnage of ALL commercial shipping (so not small boats, or military, including ferries, tankers, goods boats, ) is 1,396,000,000 tonnes.

Lets add 2 zero's to that to account for all remaining boats. That's 100 times more displacement than the combined sum of all the bulkiest bulk ships. Thats 33 cubic miles. Which is probably a gross over estimate.

There are 139,000,000 Square miles of ocean.

That means 33 cubic miles applied to the whole thing would work out to about 0.015 inches. Or the thickness of about 4 sheets of paper.

In reality, the total tonnage is most realistically only about 2/3 times the gross tonnage of the massive ships mentioned here, and most of that will be down to miltary ships. That works out at about 0.0004 inches or 10.16 micrometers: About the thickness of a human hair.

That's all very interesting - but again you seem to attributing things to my 'point' and this thread I have not been claiming.

A wise person once said; " If I swim in the ocean, the sea levels rise."

A ridiculous as it may be to actually consider? It's more ridiculous (in my view) to dismiss it (displacement) entirely. Especially since there are other things civilization has contributed to rising sea levels that we haven't even discussed yet. Things like concrete anti-errosion efforts on our rivers that increase fresh water flow to the gulf and how that washes silt and sediments out into the Gulf. This is probably going on in other developed nations as well.

One by one, I'm sure you can find a way to ridicule or to dismiss these lesser known 'factors.' But to me, they all add up to some degree and there is no harm in knowing what their impacts actually are.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:37:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 1:08:46 PM, Such wrote:
At 7/26/2014 11:37:26 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/26/2014 6:22:21 AM, Such wrote:

To displace water, something must be submerged in the water; it cannot be above it. So, that would mean that whatever we've placed in the water covers a space of 128,400 cubic miles in order to result in a 0.04 percent increase in overall sea levels on the planet.

Are you claiming (incorrectly) that ships are not displacing any water when they are afloat? Because you should know that they do displace at least the volume of the portion that is below the water's surface and (I believe) you can add to that some of the amount being displaced when the vessel is in motion and is creating a wake.

No, my fellow thimble, I'm suggesting that most of the land expansions man has made are above water, not floating on it or whatever you must think.

Ummmmm. If the land is expanded into the waters edge... how is the water that used to be there not being displaced?

Thankfully someone else caught your mathematical error in that. Again, I would like to see the Raw data and then decide for myself if it's significant or not.

Well, my error was that I simply jumped from the overall displacement to the size of the displacement of water that it would produce. As it pertains to my overall point, it's negligible. The water wouldn't reach halfway to the moon, but it would still be fifty miles into the air. The Karman line (basically, the boundary to outer space) is about 62 miles from the surface of the earth, so you're still looking at an astounding amount of water.

How astounding, you may ask?

Well, lets look at some more "raw data," since Ramshutu's illustrations didn't suffice for you (18 million of our utmost largest ship in the ocean all at once).

One cubic mile of water weighs 105,000 tons. http://wiki.answers.com...

So, 128,000 cubic miles weigh 13,440,000,000 tons.

Humans would need to put approximately 13.5 billion tons of crap in the ocean to increase it's overall levels by 0.04 percent.


Okay - STOP - think & remember that I have not attributed the entire .04% rise in sea levels to civilian caused 'displacement.'

Have I?

The trash in the Ocean is sadly around 7 million tons. http://garbagepatch.net...


That is a serious issue, but not one that would affect the ocean level.

If every ship in the ocean were removed, it would raise the ocean level about six microns: https://what-if.xkcd.com...


Whaaaa?

How would REMOVING ships (displacement) actually cause sea levels to RISE?

About 35 airplanes have crashed into the ocean ever: http://en.wikipedia.org...

How many were shot down, crashed or dumped into the oceans during WW2 and other military conflicts and training exercises (in all countries)?


That's 6 tons per aircraft on average for large aircraft (so, we're overestimating, here), which results in an overwhelming 70 tons contribution of displacement.

So, there's your raw data, how one measures cubic miles notwithstanding.


You have given me a lot of information and you have even been generous with your consideration of the point by going so far as to exaggerate (benefit of the doubt) the data we have so far. I actually appreciate your efforts to try to put it all into scale for me.

But again, I have never tried to claim that displacement accounts for the total .04% rise in Sea Levels or even of a fraction of that amount.

I've only tried to make the point that (however great or small) displacement must be considered as one of the many factors.

But, by all means, belittle someone giving you the information you so desperately desire because I forgot a small step in my figures while illustrating something massive for you. Does it really make a difference whether it would stretch into the ionosphere or halfway to the moon? It would, in any case, be the largest object you've ever seen in your life.


I'm sorry you felt belittled. I thought that I made it clear that I wouldn't have even checked the math myself. I fully understand the scale of what we have been discussing and while I admire your confidence that you think your point has been made and that mankind's total contributions in the way of displacement is not even worth consideration- I simply don't share that attitude - YET.

I may get there - eventually. But it won't be because others don't feel the data is worthy of more consideration.

I could have just called you an idiot.

I've been called worse.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 3:35:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 1:37:50 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I'm sorry you felt belittled. I thought that I made it clear that I wouldn't have even checked the math myself. I fully understand the scale of what we have been discussing and while I admire your confidence that you think your point has been made and that mankind's total contributions in the way of displacement is not even worth consideration- I simply don't share that attitude - YET.

I may get there - eventually. But it won't be because others don't feel the data is worthy of more consideration.

The idea was worthy of consideration. My initial thoughts were "no way." You see, I have a reasonable grasp of scale. The oceans are sort of pretty big in comparrison to boats.

But fine, someone crunched the numbers to actually give an indication of exactly what the difference would be, they got some of their maths wrong, but proved the point.

Rather than accept this, you remained skeptical.

So I crunched the numbers using REAL information, and quantified the "effect" to about the thickness of a human hair. Someone else did the same, and the numbers were pretty close (the difference was down to me actually overestimating).

I also quantified the difference in sea levels 1 degree of temperature change. Which is a LOT.

You see the issue is now, that two of us have demonstrated that the effect is so negligible that it would be impossible to measure in any practical sense, and it can be shown to be dwarfed by most other significant factors affecting sea levels.

Rather than challenge the maths, the calculations, implications of what we are saying you are simply stating that it should still be considered even when it is obvious it can be ignored as a practical concern.

What you are doing is pretty simple. It's like having a discussion about how to save money on your weekly shopping bill, and then suggesting using one less granual of sugar in each coffee you drink. And then complaining that we should consider it when such a suggestion is called out for being stupid.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 8:07:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 3:35:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 1:37:50 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
I'm sorry you felt belittled. I thought that I made it clear that I wouldn't have even checked the math myself. I fully understand the scale of what we have been discussing and while I admire your confidence that you think your point has been made and that mankind's total contributions in the way of displacement is not even worth consideration- I simply don't share that attitude - YET.

I may get there - eventually. But it won't be because others don't feel the data is worthy of more consideration.

The idea was worthy of consideration. My initial thoughts were "no way." You see, I have a reasonable grasp of scale. The oceans are sort of pretty big in comparrison to boats.

But fine, someone crunched the numbers to actually give an indication of exactly what the difference would be, they got some of their maths wrong, but proved the point.

Rather than accept this, you remained skeptical.


Ummm - what is it that you think I am being skeptical of?

So I crunched the numbers using REAL information, and quantified the "effect" to about the thickness of a human hair. Someone else did the same, and the numbers were pretty close (the difference was down to me actually overestimating).

I also quantified the difference in sea levels 1 degree of temperature change. Which is a LOT.


That's true - I understand what your claims are /were and I actually visited the links that say the same.

You see the issue is now, that two of us have demonstrated that the effect is so negligible that it would be impossible to measure in any practical sense, and it can be shown to be dwarfed by most other significant factors affecting sea levels.


While I appreciate your efforts, I have not taken the time to personally confirm everything you guys have shared. It's not so much that I am doubtful or skeptical of your data and arguments - I'm just not in the habit of accepting anything without confirming it for myself.

Rather than challenge the maths, the calculations, implications of what we are saying you are simply stating that it should still be considered even when it is obvious it can be ignored as a practical concern.


When I do the math for myself (after some more fact finding) I may very well agree with you - that mankind's accumulative displacement can be ignored.

I'm not there yet and you are butt hurting because you think I should be.

I'm not sure why my position on this personally matters to you as your chest thumping and impatience doesn't concern me in the least.

What you are doing is pretty simple. It's like having a discussion about how to save money on your weekly shopping bill, and then suggesting using one less granual of sugar in each coffee you drink. And then complaining that we should consider it when such a suggestion is called out for being stupid.

I'm sure you think so.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 10:02:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Holy moly, you're a freak but I have to say, that's probably the most numbers I've ever found interesting.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
MoorJenni
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 1:37:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Global sea level rise due to the melting of ice in Antarctica and Greenland. This is due to solar activity. The sun has cycles: from cold to warm. Perhaps this is the main reason for rising sea levels.