quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Presumably on planet Dumbass, water levels go up and down based on whether there is a hill or valley on the coast.

On planet Reality, low lying areas make inlets and bays which are surrounded by higher ground.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

And mysteriously you still have no real citation to argue the fact that the global factors may make temporary changes in the level of the ocean (You know... tides) but that the water is always trying to level itself out.

More and more you sound like someone who bought a degree from a coin operated machine.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Here's the difference in sea levels between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal.

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzpanamaocean.htm

Add to that the difference in tidal range (6 meters on the Pacific side vs 0.3 meters on the Atlantic) and if you could put a sea level canal thru (t's been considered), you'd have an average 5-6 knot current running west to east.

About.com... really? That's the citation you want to use?

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

In regards to the article posted by Mupainurpleasure:

- It is possible to sail around the world. That means that all oceans are interconnected on the surface.
- Water, which is what the ocean is made out of, is self-leveling. Therefore, if you add water on one side of an ocean, it doesn't make that side of the ocean higher or deeper.

My question is simply this: How is it possible that an ocean level rising only effects one side of an ocean, or effect one part of the worlds coastlines more than the rest since water levels itself out?

I think anyone with an ounce of sense would ask these questions when reading a story about how one particular bit of coastline is effected more than any other in the world. Because of the nature of water, it is more likely that there is some other factor besides climate change to be considered here. Erosion could be a factor, the currents could be weakening the land underneath this section of coastline making the land slowly sink into the ocean.

However, one thing I will need a lot of convincing of is that for some reason water acts differently on the Eastern coast of North America than it does in Europe, and... by virtue of the fact that all oceans are interconnected... the rest of the world. Perhaps one of you climate change nutters can explain that to me.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

ROFLMAO!

You're absolutely right about one thing! I guess I didn't ask what one has to do with the other. Meant to, but didn't. LOL.

Unfortunately though, your explanation is still incorrect. In order for your explanation to hold water, the Coriolis Effect would have to work only in certain areas of a given body of water, and not in others. The same planetart influences that drive the Coriolis effect in New York, are going to similar at every point on that basic latitude, but they will be most similar within the same body of water. So for your explanation to be valid, the Coriolis Effect would not work on the European or North African Atlantic coastlines.

That is obviously not true. The Coriolis Effect is the same on European Coasts, and instead of heat from the tropics, they have heat coming up through the currents from the equatorial waters of Africa, and a whole lot of ocean.

The same is true for your argument about Centripetal Force. That force is not going to be stronger on a single coastline because it is a global phenomenon.

Then there is your prevailing winds argument. How fast does the wind have to blow to move surface water and hold it in place? Hurricanes cannot even exert that sort of wind power, so the prevailing winds causing the water to be deeper on one side of an ocean is obviously untrue as well.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Why are their locks on the Panama Canal? Because the Pacific and Atlantic have different levels.

quote:

The implications of the research are clear. Bell and colleagues summed the situation up this way: “Widespread freeze-on can change the rheology and modify the flow of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Inclusion of these basal processes is essential to produce robust predictions of future ice sheet change.” Tulaczyk and Hossainzadeh are even more to the point:

The discovery of thick, widespread accreted ice layers changes in fundamental ways our understanding of the Antarctic ice sheet. Further mapping and modeling of these ice bodies is necessary to aid the ongoing search for the oldest ice on Earth. New models of subglacial water generation, flow, and freezing will have to be developed to account for this large internal mass and heat redistribution within the ice sheet

These scientists are saying that the new findings fundamentally change our understanding of ice sheets and their inclusion in new models is essential. Basically, this means all of the model predictions of how fast ice is melting and moving to the sea, in both Antarctica and Greenland, need to be revised. It turns out that all those model based predictions of an icy Armageddon, with glacial ice racing to the ocean at ever increasing rates, were not based on reality.

This discovery shows the danger of basing estimates of future conditions on model output, be it ice flow or climate change. As fodder for research models are fine, but as a foundation to base public policy on they are horrid. The public, media and politicians need to understand that models are not fact, they are at best imperfect representations of a poorly understood reality.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okeanos

Xerxes had a brilliant idea 2500 years ago.
If the sea does not behave according to your wishes, have it lashed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okeanos

Xerxes had a brilliant idea 2500 years ago.
If the sea does not behave according to your wishes, have it lashed.

GOOD ONE . It looks like the NC legislature is trying that same trick that didn't work 2500 years ago. (One of the main reasons they lost to the Greeks was a nasty storm that sunk and scattered most of his fleet enabling a numerically inferior Greek fleet to kick their ass.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That would present other insurmountable physics problems as well as ignorance of fact and unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality as well as causality. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

hmm, good one anyway.

if/when they DO get flooded, who ya think is gonna have to pay for it all?

US!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Yes actually, those are much better than About.com. I hope you took the time to thank whoever found them for you.

-SD-