High global seal level rise by 2100 + Earlier conditions for complex life that faded

[C C]

Global sea level could rise 8 feet by 2100 - Futurity
http://www.futurity.org/sea-levels-floods-1339072/

EXCERPT: Sea level in the Northeast and in some other US regions could rise significantly faster than the global average. Moreover, in a worst-case scenario, global sea level could rise by about 8 feet by 2100, according to a new report which lays out six scenarios intended to assist with national and regional planning. “Currently, about 6 million Americans live within about 6 feet of the sea level, and they are potentially vulnerable to permanent flooding in this century. Well before that happens, though, many areas are already starting to flood more frequently,” says Robert E. Kopp, an associate professor in the earth and planetary sciences department at Rutgers University. “Considering possible levels of sea-level rise and their consequences is crucial to risk management....”

---

Conditions right for complex life may have come and gone in Earth's distant past
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...163939.htm

RELEASE: Conditions suitable to support complex life may have developed in Earth's oceans -- and then faded -- more than a billion years before life truly took hold, a new University of Washington-led study has found.

The findings, based on using the element selenium as a tool to measure oxygen in the distant past, may also benefit the search for signs of life beyond Earth.

In a paper published Jan. 18 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, lead author Michael Kipp, a UW doctoral student in Earth and Space Sciences, analyzed isotopic ratios of the element selenium in sedimentary rocks to measure the presence of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere between 2 and 2.4 billion years ago.

Kipp's UW coauthors are former Earth and space sciences postdoctoral researcher Eva Stüeken -- now a faculty member at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland -- and professor Roger Buick, who is also a faculty member with the UW Astrobiology Program. Their other coauthor is Andrey Bekker of the University of California, Riverside, whose original hypothesis this work helps confirm, the researchers said.

"There is fossil evidence of complex cells that go back maybe 1 ¾ billion years," said Buick. "But the oldest fossil is not necessarily the oldest one that ever lived -- because the chances of getting preserved as a fossil are pretty low.

"This research shows that there was enough oxygen in the environment to have allowed complex cells to have evolved, and to have become ecologically important, before there was fossil evidence." He added, "That doesn't mean that they did -- but they could have."

Kipp and Stüeken learned this by analyzing selenium traces in pieces of sedimentary shale from the particular time periods using mass spectrometry in the UW Isotope Geochemistry Lab, to discover if selenium had been changed by the presence of oxygen, or oxidized. Oxidized selenium compounds can then get reduced, causing a shift in the isotopic ratios which gets recorded in the rocks. The abundance of selenium also increases in the rocks when lots of oxygen is present.

Buick said it was previously thought that oxygen on Earth had a history of "none, then some, then a lot. But what it looks like now is, there was a period of a quarter of a billion years or so where oxygen came quite high, and then sunk back down again."

The oxygen's persistence over a long stretch of time is an important factor, Kipp stressed: "Whereas before and after maybe there were transient environments that could have occasionally supported these organisms, to get them to evolve and be a substantial part of the ecosystem, you need oxygen to persist for a long time."

Stüeken said such an oxygen increase has been guessed at previously, but it was unclear how widespread it was. This research creates a clearer picture of what this oxygen "overshoot" looked like: "That it was moderately significant in the atmosphere and surface ocean -- but not at all in the deep ocean."

What caused oxygen levels to soar this way only to crash just as dramatically?

"That's the million-dollar question," Stüeken said. "It's unknown why it happened, and why it ended."

[stryder]

I consideration on Global warming/sea levels and a potential way to prove how mankind effects the weather/environment is actually with Raw Sewage.

When raw untreated sewage is exerted into the sea either from overflow pipes or pumped purposely, it contains an enriched level of Nitrates and with other assorted chemicals that aid in both Algae and Bacteria growth.

While this can lead to entire beaches being cordoned off if the tide doesn't happen to sit right, it can lead to 'Algae blooms'. The increase in yield of algae is eventually followed by algae bio-degrading, at this point it releases CH₄ (along with other compounds)
Methane is one of the major contributors to what is referred to as Greenhouse Gases (GHG's) and is one of the ones that the Kyoto Protocol was created to try and deal with to some extent.

The other factor here is the breakdown of Algae could potentially generate an exothermic reaction which in turn could aid in raising the temperature of sea water. It could also likely factor in on generating high pressure fronts such as adding to the effect of El Niño's and therefore have a direct effect on the weather cycles.

So if you ever get the chance to put Trump straight on climate change, remember to talk shit to him.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Glaciers are flowing 6 times faster
that has not been factored in.
massive lumps of ice many square kilometers in size are breaking off,
that has not been factored in.

sea level rise is likely to happen at an accelerating rate.
i think we can comfortably increase the current forcasts by a factor of 10 as a rough probability.

oh and recently it appears there is now developing very deep cracks in the ice shelf's

it is plainly obvious that the majority do not care.

the answer is not a solution of scientific development of machines or equipment but a psychological issue of IF the masses will decide to care about it.

just to add, for those interested. the glaciers hold back the massive ice shelfs.
the sea ice holds back the glaciers

soo its quite simple but avoided by media and world leaders.
the sea ice breaking off and melting...
the warmers sea temperatures
they reduce the force to hold the glaciers back which secures the ice shelf.
while the estimates have been made relating to the sea ice melt.
what has been omitted is the effect of less sea ice allowing a speeding up of the glaciers falling away from the ice shelf.
as that accelerates the ice shelf might start developing cracks at the pressure canges and break up extremely fast compared to any current predictions.

focus needs to change
from arguements about the current temperature on some rich or uncaring persons back yard,
 to glacier speeds and the ice shelf being held in place.

and as  CosmicTraveler pointed out about what happens when you flush your toilet.
imagine the millions in coastal citys who suddenyl cant flush their toilet without it ending up on the footpath downtown on the coastal areas flooding back up all the storm water drains.
the entire citys sewage system will need to be re-built and powered by massive amounts of electricity to pump everything uphil instead of the current mostly down hill.

[stryder]

On the subject of poles and Icecaps, I did consider something some time back in regards to Radio telecommunications. For years radio services and HAM operators have known that to get their signals around the world required "bouncing" it from the Ionosphere. This meant that on certain "clear" days people could hear someone transmitting miles away, even if they couldn't communicate back.

As you likely are aware at one point there was a serious concern about the holes in the ozone over the poles which was suggested to be caused by Greenhouse gas emissions (Freon/CFC's etc) What isn't usually considered is the increase in Radio-Frequency usage in the northern hemisphere. After all as our "developed" world gets more and more advanced, it's been producing more noise through such frequencies and those frequencies bounce round the pole caps.

What isn't considered is that snow shelfs/glaciers can also reflect certain radiations (So a hole in the ozone allows cosmic radiation through which can then end up bouncing off the ice and reflecting back through the bottom of the ozone too.), and that radio frequency is Dielectric (It can cause molecules to reverberate to produce heat). The hypothetical is that such reverberation would likely effect the structure of ice crystals not just as they are locked when frozen but when they are also formed, and this in turn can cause Structural failure (Collapsing Ice shelf's and melting in general)

Obviously all these points are highly speculative however research could conclude whether there is any merit in any of the hypothetical's.

I did try to cover some basic mathematics just based upon mobile usage, namely if each phone is approximate 2-8 watts transmission and each cell requires between 2 and 6 towers to generate a signal operating with the same wattage (based upon the rationale that the same amount of energy is used for transmission) and there is 7.4 Billion people in the world with the likelihood of between 1 and 2 mobile devices each on average. It's actually possible to convert the wattage output into a Calorific value which can then be used to identify how much of a temperature change for a given volume is possible. (say a body of water.)

Now obviously I ignored Wifi hotspots, peoples home wifi, smart devices, radio, television etc. All those could potentially also be added to the equation.

While radio frequency might not heat the depths of the sea (due to diffraction/diffusion), the point is that the surface level is less dense and more prone to warming, especially if the water resides somewhere where is shallow. So I considered trying to look at the mathematics in relationship to only the top level of water bodies (2-4 inches). The rough calculations I came to was that a body of water the size of one (possibly more) of the US great lakes is heated by one Celsius. It doesn't sound much, but consider that this is a constant heating, it's a bit like a slow cooker in that fashion, it might not be too hot but left on long enough it will burn what your cooking.

The worst bit is though when technology increases it's need for data yield (e.g. greater data plans etc) the amount of watts used is drastically increased if some other way of using the raw data isn't considered (compression).

(Atleast you can get an understanding of my current Avatar as depicting of why your smart phone slave masters deserve to be burned.)

[RainbowUnicorn]

On the subject of poles and Icecaps, I did consider something some time back in regards to Radio telecommunications.  For years radio services and HAM operators have known that to get their signals around the world required "bouncing" it from the Ionosphere.  This meant that on certain "clear" days people could hear someone transmitting miles away, even if they couldn't communicate back.  

As you likely are aware at one point there was a serious concern about the holes in the ozone over the poles which was suggested to be caused by Greenhouse gas emissions (Freon/CFC's etc)  What isn't usually considered is the increase in Radio-Frequency usage in the northern hemisphere.  After all as our "developed" world gets more and more advanced, it's been producing more noise through such frequencies and those frequencies bounce round the pole caps.

What isn't considered is that snow shelfs/glaciers can also reflect certain radiations (So a hole in the ozone allows cosmic radiation through which can then end up bouncing off the ice and reflecting back through the bottom of the ozone too.), and that radio frequency is Dielectric (It can cause molecules to reverberate to produce heat).  The hypothetical is that such reverberation would likely effect the structure of ice crystals not just as they are locked when frozen but when they are also formed, and this in turn can cause Structural failure (Collapsing Ice shelf's and melting in general)

Obviously all these points are highly speculative however research could conclude whether there is any merit in any of the hypothetical's.  

I did try to cover some basic mathematics just based upon mobile usage, namely if each phone is approximate 2-8 watts transmission and each cell requires between 2 and 6 towers to generate a signal operating with the same wattage (based upon the rationale that the same amount of energy is used for transmission) and there is 7.4 Billion people in the world with the likelihood of between 1 and 2 mobile devices each on average.  It's actually possible to convert the wattage output into a Calorific value which can then be used to identify how much of a temperature change for a given volume is possible. (say a body of water.)  

Now obviously I ignored Wifi hotspots, peoples home wifi, smart devices, radio, television etc. All those could potentially also be added to the equation.

While radio frequency might not heat the depths of the sea (due to diffraction/diffusion), the point is that the surface level is less dense and more prone to warming, especially if the water resides somewhere where is shallow.  So I considered trying to look at the mathematics in relationship to only the top level of water bodies (2-4 inches).  The rough calculations I came to was that a body of water the size of one (possibly more) of the US great lakes is heated by one Celsius.  It doesn't sound much, but consider that this is a constant heating, it's a bit like a slow cooker in that fashion, it might not be too hot but left on long enough it will burn what your cooking.

The worst bit is though when technology increases it's need for data yield (e.g. greater data plans etc) the amount of watts used is drastically increased if some other way of using the raw data isn't considered (compression).

(Atleast you can get an understanding of my current Avatar as depicting of why your smart phone slave masters deserve to be burned.)

ta daaa !

http://www.sciencealert.com/thousands-of...y-bad-news

and ta daa

[Image: image.jpg?_ga=1.206015059.1546806335.1477809637]

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/antarc...?r=US&IR=T

these are under investigation and in massive numbers.
the weight of the water then cracks the ice and it pours down making holes all the way through.
this leads to cracks that go down to levels of around 2 kilometers deep.

climate scientists and climatologists are struggling to keep up with this new development and monitor it.