S2000 Vintage Owners Knowledge, age and life experiences represent the members of the Vintage Owners

Crazy Weather

Thread Tools
 
Old May 4, 2017 | 04:38 PM
  #11  
Legal Bill's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,131
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Default

Originally Posted by skunkworks
Thanks for the insight. I was about to believe what 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree upon: The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor. And when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates.

Maybe the results of their studies and leanings are a result of peer pressures.

Does that mean all the extra glacier water will just evaporate?
Reply
Old May 5, 2017 | 03:41 AM
  #12  
boltonblue's Avatar
Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37,625
Likes: 6,386
From: bolton
Default

Originally Posted by Legal Bill
Does that mean all the extra glacier water will just evaporate?
sure, right up to 120% relative humidity.

that's why Bandar Iran hit a heat index of 165° two summers ago.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8ecbcdc1d3fc
Reply
Old May 5, 2017 | 05:24 AM
  #13  
S2KRAY's Avatar
Member (Premium)
25 Year Member
Community Builder
Active Streak: 30 Days
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,715
Likes: 1,168
From: Lewes, DE
Default

Heavy rain here today. But we do need it.
Reply
Old May 5, 2017 | 08:35 AM
  #14  
cosmomiller's Avatar
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,961
Likes: 3,468
From: Foothills East of Sacramento
Default

Originally Posted by Legal Bill
Does that mean all the extra glacier water will just evaporate?
If all of the arctic (North Pole) ice were to melt guess what that would do to the ocean water level? Nothing! Why? All that ice (water) is floating; it is already in the "pool" of water. The ice stored on Antartica (South Pole) and Greenland is another matter. Since that is on land, that ice melt contributes to the ocean volume. However, there is a lot of ice in Antartica that is not on land but floating offshore. No impact there.
Reply
Old May 5, 2017 | 09:27 AM
  #15  
SheDrivesIt's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,061
Likes: 324
From: Land of Cincinnati Chili
Default

Originally Posted by cosmomiller
If all of the arctic (North Pole) ice were to melt guess what that would do to the ocean water level? Nothing! Why? All that ice (water) is floating; it is already in the "pool" of water. The ice stored on Antartica (South Pole) and Greenland is another matter. Since that is on land, that ice melt contributes to the ocean volume. However, there is a lot of ice in Antartica that is not on land but floating offshore. No impact there.
Not so fast.... It's not really that simple.
Melting ice and its effect on water levels
Reply
Old May 5, 2017 | 04:26 PM
  #16  
boltonblue's Avatar
Member (Premium)
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37,625
Likes: 6,386
From: bolton
Default

The vast majority is actually on land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
if it all melted the sea level would rise 58 meters.
i.e Florida would become a sea floor.
Reply
Old May 6, 2017 | 09:30 AM
  #17  
cosmomiller's Avatar
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,961
Likes: 3,468
From: Foothills East of Sacramento
Default

Anecdotal evidence: I grew up on Coronado Island and spent a fair amount of my youth fishing out at the Naval Base. Many hours spent on the edge of piers watching the lures float back between pilings. I can go back now and positively observe the barnacles and muscles are in exactly the same position as they were in the 60s and 70s. No change in ocean levels there.
Reply
Old May 6, 2017 | 10:27 AM
  #18  
skunkworks's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,976
Likes: 10
From: Denver Metro Area
Wink

Originally Posted by cosmomiller
Anecdotal evidence: I grew up on Coronado Island and spent a fair amount of my youth fishing out at the Naval Base. Many hours spent on the edge of piers watching the lures float back between pilings. I can go back now and positively observe the barnacles and muscles are in exactly the same position as they were in the 60s and 70s. No change in ocean levels there.
It’s probably more than a casual childhood observance

In 2014 the global sea levels were 2.6 inches above a 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-2014 according to the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)). And according to NOAA our Sea levels continue to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year. It’s now 2017, so add 3/8 of an inch since NOAA’s 2014 report.

Maybe the rise isn’t obvious to you - yet, but if you live another 50 years report back on your findings -or- have your children or grandchildren do the same. The results would be interesting.

Gary
Reply
Old May 8, 2017 | 05:43 AM
  #19  
Zippy's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,579
Likes: 157
From: West Deptford NJ
Default

There is nothing more reasonable than anecdotal, unsubstantiated, unscientific evidence of a the world's most brilliant child with an idetic memory of barnacle placement. Yup, no change there.
Reply
Old May 8, 2017 | 06:10 AM
  #20  
dlq04's Avatar
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 45,916
Likes: 8,389
From: Mish-she-gan
Default

Originally Posted by Zippy
There is nothing more reasonable than anecdotal, unsubstantiated, unscientific evidence of a the world's most brilliant child with an idetic memory of barnacle placement. Yup, no change there.
I got'a remember that one.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:25 PM.