Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It depends on how old you are. You may have gone through school when plate tectonics was just a theory, not a proven fact. They didn't teach this stuff in school back then. Some schools would have covered isostatic rebound, though. IKB shouldn't assume that it was part of a universal curriculum.
OMG, you're positively ancient! (j/k) No, it doesn't. You never know online, though. In any case, it looks like we both missed out on that "3rd-grade physics" lesson.
This is great! I took Geology and Marine Science in high school and college and I don't remember learning about isostatic rebound (or if I did, it must have really not interested me at the time. ).
I didn't learn about it until college myself, but it is part of the curriculum I teach now to high school students.
It depends on how old you are. You may have gone through school when plate tectonics was just a theory, not a proven fact. They didn't teach this stuff in school back then. Some schools would have covered isostatic rebound, though. IKB shouldn't assume that it was part of a universal curriculum.
I am not the one who brought up the "3rd grade physics" it was harry chickpea, I just mentioned it back to him to be facetious.
The vast majority of climate science and oceanography necessary to understand climate change is going to be graduate level or above. That is why it takes the climatologists at least 8 years of study to get to the point where their being to publish.
Its funny people don't take high school biology and then think they know as much or more medicine than a doctor but when it comes to climatology/oceanography everyone who reads a blog thinks they understand stuff people have spent as much time studying as the MDs do.
Plate tectonics is still a theory, not a fact but in science theories do not eventually become facts. It is a common misconception but a misconception nevertheless.
OMG, you're positively ancient! (j/k) No, it doesn't. You never know online, though. In any case, it looks like we both missed out on that "3rd-grade physics" lesson.
(Really? Physics, in 3rd grade?? )
Most third graders would understand the physics of isostatic rebound even if they don't know the name. Ask them what happens to the surface of a waterbed or air mattress when you put something heavy in one spot. Then what happens when you remove it. Most of them will get it straight away.
I love it when fear-mongers try to call basic math skills "pseudo-science." If nothing else, it proves my point that those claiming such gloom and doom are clueless and invested in following the crowd instead of using independent thought.
As blind cleric points out, post glacial rebound is real, and has a mitigating effect. The seeming immovability of bedrock has been shown time and time again to be a false assumption. Little things like the Grand Canyon and the Himalayan uplift happened to "bedrock." You might want to invest in a refresher course on plate tectonics and plasticity.
In the meantime... if you can show and detail where the math is wrong, please do so. Calling it by pejoratives is not going to win any debate.
Thank you for analysis. Some common sense to add to the tread. First, Ice is less dense than water, so going by weight is just plane common sense, thank you. When mid America was under water last time the earth was very different and not at the same altitudes, this is why there were sea creatures in Kansas and the Sahara. Some say fresh water from the glaciers has a different density than salt water. There is a system where the heavier salt brine is dropped at the poles in the sea currents so the oceans salinity is very different everywhere and temp. very much effects salinity and vise versa. To start in on your theory, the rate is slow now, and I don't think it will speed up to AG's level. But the simple fact is if the water gets warmer it will melt at a faster rate. One issue in Greenland is the melted water in the middle is draining under the ice and slow pushes massive amounts of ice in to the sea, which will result in faster melting as the cycle continues. I really like the explanation you gave with hydraulics but I think you forgetting a key factor. I live in the us, the west has a much heavier, thicker crust than the east. So if what your saying is true, than land all over won't be pushed up but the thinner parts of the crust will be pushed up. While I agree with your science, I think it won't be easy, as you somewhat covered, to predict how and what is going to happen.
The vast majority of climate science and oceanography necessary to understand climate change is going to be graduate level or above. That is why it takes the climatologists at least 8 years of study to get to the point where their being to publish.
You really think this is the case?
I feel like anyone who has taken basic science courses (and paid attention in class) should be able to understand the green house effect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fundamental physics behind it seem very digestible... carbon in the gas form builds up in the atmosphere and traps heat. The end.
Carbon causing acidification is harder to understand. If I had ever learned something about it, I've already forgotten it by now. But I trust scientists so it's okay.
Plate tectonics is still a theory, not a fact but in science theories do not eventually become facts. It is a common misconception but a misconception nevertheless.
The oceanography instructor I had was wrong, then. He said the theory was proven when they sent submersibles to the mid-Atlantic trench to observe new crust emerging from it, or some such. He said that before that, the dept. faculty taught that "this is what we think is happening", but after that, they spoke definitively, as in "we know this is how it works".
You hit the nail on the head FSM, even though you say you are a non-scientist:
1) The greenhouse effect is real. It is a fact, not a theory, that if you dump CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, whether it is from natural volcanoes, or in the current case man's industrialization activities, you will trap more of the sun's radiation and the mean temperature of the earth will rise. Not everywhere all at once, but overall in average terms, a significant rise. Deniers will always say, well it snowed like crazy and winter came early in Lower Slavonia in 2015, but the earth on a WHOLE is heating up.
2) Not EVERYWHERE will there be a sea level rise. Places with both removed glacial ice rebound and rare places along the coast with a compressive stress regime in plate collision zones or under magma hot spots that are uplifting the land will have reprieves as the tectonic uplift counteracts the eustatic (real water level) rise in sea level. The only places this will occur is in places like Greenland and Antarctica (glacial rebound) and maybe Hawaii and Japan (hot spot and plate collision zone, respectively). All the rest of the 90% of the world not in these special cases will have coastlines with rising sea level and all those problems the US Navy and 99.9% of scientists show concern.
There is simply NO reason not to believe in climate change or the real risk of a rising eustatic sea level endangering coastal cities, marine construction yards, naval bases, and tropical island nations, except that you are a right-wing no-nothing with your head buried up Donald Trump's ***, pardon my French! :-)
The oceanography instructor I had was wrong, then. He said the theory was proven when they sent submersibles to the mid-Atlantic trench to observe new crust emerging from it, or some such. He said that before that, the dept. faculty taught that "this is what we think is happening", but after that, they spoke definitively, as in "we know this is how it works".
Wood's Hole and Scripps' Oceanographic Institutes researcher's work really did prove plate tectonics in the 60s and 70s both with your mentioned submersibles witnessing the creation of new crust at mid-oceanic ridges (not trenches) as well as the symetric matched basaltic magnetic "stripes" with ship-board magnetometers. These stripes clearly delineated the creation of thousands of square miles of new crust created "in the breach" as the continents moved away from each other. North America, Eurasia, and Africa were one continent in the Permian, about 270 million years ago. The Atlantic grew from an African-rift valley situation into a 3-4000 mile wide ocean since then.
If you think about it further, while the Atlantic is currently growing, then the Pacific must be shrinking. Indeed it is. The Pacific oceanic plate is subducting (rammed under) the continent of Asia in the Japan trench (these are plate DESTRUCTION ZONES, not creation zones) and other features along the west rim of the Pacific. This continuous cramming down of these massive rock plates drives the horrific earthquakes (e.g. Fukishima a couple of years ago and the Anchorage Earthquake of 1964) and also when the plate tips are subducted far enough down to melt, they drive the great volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa.
If we are unfortunate enough to have some big eruptions that emit a lot of CO2 and sulfuric acid we could have even more of a greenhouse effect than just from the industrial activity. I will say that there is also a possibility that eruptions with a great ash dump into the atmosphere could shield the earth and cause a cool-down. However, this would probably just be a 3-5 year "blip" to the overall warming curve for the next couple of hundred years.
Last edited by bamba_boy; 09-15-2016 at 09:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You never know online, though. In any case, it looks like we both missed out on that "3rd-grade physics" lesson. 
)
