Archaeologica.org

Yeah Guys, I don't have any figures in front of me, and there are many considerations involved, but even one tenth of one percent of the vast volume of the oceans is a lot of water.

I'm not even trying to figure that one out.

Digit, you have to be a Yank to love American football.

I don't have any figures in front of me, and there are many considerations involved, but even one tenth of one percent of the vast volume of the oceans is a lot of water.

I have already provided this data in the previous post
perhaps you missed it
or perhaps you don't care
either way
its there if you want the data
if you don't it would now be pretty obvious to anyone reading this why that is

I was ahead of of you on that one Monk, that was why I commented that there must be more math there. What about waters mixing when currents flow?
The thermal expansion of the Caribbean is sufficient to raise its level about 3ft above the Atlantic's average sea level, but then the Carribean is a relative shallow basin. The whole thing tends to make a mockery of the experts saying 1%, they should be more explicit, do they mean 1% of the average depth or what?

Digit wrote:I was ahead of of you on that one Monk, that was why I commented that there must be more math there. What about waters mixing when currents flow?
The thermal expansion of the Caribbean is sufficient to raise its level about 3ft above the Atlantic's average sea level, but then the Carribean is a relative shallow basin. The whole thing tends to make a mockery of the experts saying 1%, they should be more explicit, do they mean 1% of the average depth or what?

Its a difficult question to solve because the expansion of the various depths must be integrated. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/mva/WR1987/WR1987.html
This paper explains the problem as related to global warming studies. Dust off your math skills...you're gonna need 'em. On average the change is actually about 0.01% per degree C.

Forum Monk wrote:

Digit wrote:I was ahead of of you on that one Monk, that was why I commented that there must be more math there. What about waters mixing when currents flow?
The thermal expansion of the Caribbean is sufficient to raise its level about 3ft above the Atlantic's average sea level, but then the Carribean is a relative shallow basin. The whole thing tends to make a mockery of the experts saying 1%, they should be more explicit, do they mean 1% of the average depth or what?

Its a difficult question to solve because the expansion of the various depths must be integrated. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/mva/WR1987/WR1987.html
This paper explains the problem as related to global warming studies. Dust off your math skills...you're gonna need 'em. On average the change is actually about 0.01% per degree C.

I didn't mean to open a can of worms.

I can't imagine the variables. I'm not sure a hydrologist would tackle that one.

Back to football.

On what Monk, the average depth? Our planet is an oblate spheroid, thankfully, or all the water would exist in a belt at the equator. Most heating must take place at low latitudes, and any expansion would mean that the water would then flow towards the poles, as it is then flowing down hill. Being warmer it would also tend to remain at the surface as it is less dense, only sinking as it gives up its heat. There are some SCUBA divers on the forum, perhaps they can tell us how far that warm water penetrates in a given area, I'll bet it won't be far. Hence the .01%.

Beag, you're a coward!

Digit wrote:On what Monk, the average depth?... There are some SCUBA divers on the forum, perhaps they can tell us how far that warm water penetrates in a given area, I'll bet it won't be far. Hence the .01%.

No. You misunderstood (and probably did not read the article - don't worry its Sunday night in the UK and you want to relax). The expansion of 0.01% is a measure on salt water in a laboratory setting in a classic, 'take liter of water, heat it until the temperature rises 1 degree C and measure the volume' experiment. It increases about 0.01%. To understand how that translates to ocean depths with all of its complex dynamics is what the article addresses and basically says its beyond our current abilities. So as a consequence, the levels are monitored, temperature trends correlated, and conclusions are reached.

Bottom line - the temperature had a small effect and it was not sudden, which is Beagle's original question.

I like to consider myself a realist.

Guilty! I didn't read it. I was aware of the difficulty in translating experimental results into oceans, that is one of the reasons I am somewhat sceptical as to the claims by the doom and gloom prophets on global warming. I look forward to a TV programme, on any subject, where the experts tell us for a change what they don't know, it would be quite a revelation I suspect.

where the experts tell us for a change what they don't know,

Don't hold your breath my friend.

Beagle wrote:

where the experts tell us for a change what they don't know,

Don't hold your breath my friend.

i'll post this again because you all apparently missed it
it has the answer to your sea level rises

How fast did the water rise? Good question I ask

16000BP

14000BP

12000BP Ice age is rapidly ending and sea levels remain largely unaffected, as you can see the ice at this stage lies mainly on the scandanavian continent so that when it melts it will rejoin the global ocean volume which is vast in comparison and not affect the med at all

11000BP Ice Age has ended

10000BP

9000BP

8000BP

7000BP

Ice has finally vanished from the Eurasian continent slowly and it took over 4500 years to dissipate since the end of the ice age

This software is what Hancock used in his book "Underworld"
it is the most accurate on earth for global sea level rises over the last 22,000 years
pity Hancock didn't have it when he wrote "fingerpaints" or he'd have known that his claims for the level of the med pre and post ice age were complete crap
you think he would have mentioned it later eh
wonder why he didn't
heres why

The programme had created the impression that he (Graham Hancock) was an intellectual fraudster who had put forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and that he was incompetent to defend his own arguments.
Adjudication: (The Commission) finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters.

you getting this yet
Hancock is a pseudoscientist
heres the definition of that again which you keep seeming to forget

any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.

so tell me again
what scientific qualifications does he have in this area
and why is he claiming that scientists the world over are all involved in a giant cover up
thats not just archaeologists anymore is it
you also have to include climatologists
astronomers
egyptologists
geographers
meteorologists
and just about every other branch of science that Hancock sticks his unqualified toe into
all conspiring together as they do thei underpaid jobs just working together trying to stop Hancock from m aking another million from booksales to a gullible readership

now that is the truth
and you know it

your problem is that you've been believing this crap so long that to back out now and admit you were wrong would leave you open to ridicule of immense proportions

it would however have the benefit of setting your minds free from the self imposed chains you've placed them in
but hey
whatever you like
if you're that ignorant you can't see you've been lied to all along then maybe you don't deserve to see the light

Is this for me Steve?

it contains a link to the global sea level information from durham university that Hancock used in Underworld Roy
I thought it would save you the time trying to work out the math when the visuals are already available
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/palaeoshorel ... L/HOME.htm

Well thanks Steve, but I was talking about how much sea levels would rise due to its thermal expansion, nothing to do with melting ice. Before the experts started warning us about the polar caps melting etc they were giving figures for sea level rises due to thermal expansion. They have since been revised in all directions.