Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,600 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
More flooding appears to be on the horizon for people in low lying and coastal areas.


NASA: Moon wobble to cause more Earth flooding in the future

What impact will this have for the US and individual states? I hope states are ready for the cost and mess this might cause. Will this impact you? I am lucky, this will not do anything to my area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
All computers will crash at midnight 2000. The world will end, all machines will shutdown.
I made it throughY2K, I will survive the moon wobble.
BoF.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,266 Posts
We are 35 miles in from the coast, and the topo map shows us as being 33 meters above sea level.
We're good.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,747 Posts
I'm still confused on this idea of sea levels rising. If the claim is "glacial melt", then it doesn't make sense.

Ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats. It also takes up more volume. If you forced the ice under the surface of the water, it would take up more volume than it would simply as water. But, it floats. The amount of ice under the surface is equal to the amount of water needed to hold up the ice. That's what "floating" is. It's equilibrium of the system.
When the ice melts to water, it will take up the same amount of volume as the submerged portion when it was ice.

Floating ice that melts into water WILL NOT change the water's overall level.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,938 Posts
I'm still confused on this idea of sea levels rising. If the claim is "glacial melt", then it doesn't make sense.

Ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats. It also takes up more volume. If you forced the ice under the surface of the water, it would take up more volume than it would simply as water. But, it floats. The amount of ice under the surface is equal to the amount of water needed to hold up the ice. That's what "floating" is. It's equilibrium of the system.
When the ice melts to water, it will take up the same amount of volume as the submerged portion when it was ice.

Floating ice that melts into water WILL NOT change the water's overall level.

How much of a glacier is underwater? :geek:
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,747 Posts
How much of a glacier is underwater? :geek:
Most of it. The heavier portion is always underwater. That's why they flip occasionally, which is pretty cool to watch.

But, for this exercise, it doesn't matter. The fact that it's floating means it has displaced the total amount of water that it ever will, even after the whole thing melts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,938 Posts
Most of it. The heavier portion is always underwater. That's why they flip occasionally, which is pretty cool to watch.

But, for this exercise, it doesn't matter. The fact that it's floating means it has displaced the total amount of water that it ever will, even after the whole thing melts.

Um... no.

Let me be a bit more specific: How much of the glaciers in Montana are underwater?


Now, if you're referring to icebergs......
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,747 Posts
Um... no.

Let me be a bit more specific: How much of the glaciers in Montana are underwater?


Now, if you're referring to icebergs......
Yes, it does help when you're specific.
I did mean icebergs.

Do you have opinions about glaciers contributing to the rise? How many of those Montana glaciers melt into the ocean?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,938 Posts
Yes, it does help when you're specific.
I did mean icebergs.

Do you have opinions about glaciers contributing to the rise? How many of those Montana glaciers melt into the ocean?

Unless the water evaporates, it will eventually make it to one of two oceans. But glaciers melting will raise the water level in the oceans, just like opening a valve in your tub raises the water level in the tub.... if the drain is stopped.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,747 Posts

Unless the water evaporates, it will eventually make it to one of two oceans. But glaciers melting will raise the water level in the oceans, just like opening a valve in your tub raises the water level in the tub.... if the drain is stopped.
What's the fill rate expectation versus the higher temp evaporation rate?
I'd be curious to see numbers on this. The media likes to show icebergs crumbling, but we never see a slow moving mountain glacier. If that was their concern, why are they not showing it?

I'm not asking you to defend their choices. Just an observation. Could it be that glacial melt isn't actually that much of a concern?
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,747 Posts
@Back Pack Hack, I wanted to thank you for calling this difference to my attention. As I mentioned above, it didn't make sense to me why I was seeing icebergs on the media, when icebergs won't contribute anything.

Once you pointed out glaciers, I started searching.
I found this site, and was stunned at the expected total sea level rise if all of the worlds above-sea-level ice melted.
It think it might surprise a lot of people.

1.27 millimeters. Yeah... millimeters.

If there is anything wrong with the math here, I'd like to know.
Calculating glacier ice volumes and sea level equivalents - AntarcticGlaciers.org
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,938 Posts
What's the fill rate expectation versus the higher temp evaporation rate?
I'd be curious to see numbers on this. The media likes to show icebergs crumbling, but we never see a slow moving mountain glacier. If that was their concern, why are they not showing it?

I'm not asking you to defend their choices. Just an observation. Could it be that glacial melt isn't actually that much of a concern?
I can't defend someone else's claim as they never publish their sources. Nor can I address why they chose to show what they do.

And it's not just glaciers and icebergs. Snow/ice pack is a real thing as well. Just the buildup of snow and ice on land that doesn't flow like an iceberg. There's a lot of that at the south pole (if you're a globe-tard) or ice mountain ring (if you're a flerfer).
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,747 Posts
I can't defend someone else's claim as they never publish their sources. Nor can I address why they chose to show what they do.

And it's not just glaciers and icebergs. Snow/ice pack is a real thing as well. Just the buildup of snow and ice on land that doesn't flow like an iceberg. There's a lot of that at the south pole (if you're a globe-tard) or ice mountain ring (if you're a flerfer).
To be clear, I specifically said I wasn't asking you to defend their claims.

Any studies done on this amount snow/ice pack? Is it not part of the ice accumulation spoken of in my linked article?
If the entirety of glacial ice and pole cap melting will only have a 1.27mm impact on sea level rise (according to the article I linked), what's the expected impact of these other sources?

From what I'm reading, the snow/ice is such a small issue... but it's all we ever hear about.
The supposed real threat is "thermal expansion" of the ocean, not ice melt. More personal research is needed on this phenomenon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,169 Posts
I'm no scientist by any stretch.
But, I am of the opinion, if mankind and all associated machines ceased to exist tomorrow...whatever is happening with planet Earth's climate, oceans and land masses is going to continue to happen.

It always has and it always will.


113820


113821
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,938 Posts
To be clear, I specifically said I wasn't asking you to defend their claims.

Any studies done on this amount snow/ice pack? Is it not part of the ice accumulation spoken of in my linked article?
If the entirety of glacial ice and pole cap melting will only have a 1.27mm impact on sea level rise (according to the article I linked), what's the expected impact of these other sources?

From what I'm reading, the snow/ice is such a small issue... but it's all we ever hear about.
The supposed real threat is "thermal expansion" of the ocean, not ice melt. More personal research is needed on this phenomenon.
Obviously, snow and ice packs on land will contribute to sea levels rising if they melt. They have to. This is 3rd grade science. How much? I have no idea. But it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg.

I still have yet to wrap my head around what the moon's librations has to do with any of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,169 Posts
While the study highlights the dire situation facing coastal cities, the lunar wobble is actually a natural occurrence, first reported in 1728. The moon's orbit is responsible for periods of both higher and lower tides about every 18.6 years, and they aren't dangerous in their own right.

"In half of the Moon's 18.6-year cycle, Earth's regular daily tides are suppressed: High tides are lower than normal, and low tides are higher than normal," NASA explains. "In the other half of the cycle, tides are amplified: High tides get higher, and low tides get lower. Global sea-level rise pushes high tides in only one direction – higher. So half of the 18.6-year lunar cycle counteracts the effect of sea-level rise on high tides, and the other half increases the effect."

But this time around, scientists are more concerned. With sea-level rise due to climate change, the next high tide floods are expected to be more intense and more frequent than ever before, exacerbating already grim predictions.

 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top