Encyclopedia of Science

[mrogers156]

Where can I find information for the spring constant of sea water? If not available, can anyone reference a compression table for sea water showing a standard volume of water compressing as a function of depth?

My motivation for wanting to review this material is to quantify a nagging question I've had concerning whether the calculations cited for predicting sea level changes as a result of global warming are the result of using a spring constant for sea water? If a spring constant has not been used, perhaps a citation can be given from a compression table for sea water showing the change in a standard/unit volume of water as a function of ocean depth?

I am asking this rather pointed question because of a thought problem I have been constructing.

The problem is as follows:

Assume a graduated rigid tube with non deforming walls having a unit diameter lying on its side at sea level. The tube is opened at one end and closed at the other and is full of sea water. Assume the tube is approx 2.5 miles long or 4.000 km in length (av ocean depth). If the tube were lifted by the open end (without spilling of course) to the vertical (i.e. normal to the tangent plane of the earth with the gravity vector parallel to the tube), and the opening at the top is at or near the surface of the ocean, and assuming that the tube is subjected to environmental temperatures consistent with those at depth starting from the open end at sea level (atmospheric pressure and temperature assumed to be standard), what would the water level in the tube read?

Now assume all previous conditions are held for the previous tube except that a 2nd tube of identical construction and content is exactly 1 meter longer (i.e. 4.001 km), filled on the horizontal, and tilted into place next to the 1st tube with the opening at the top placed 1 meter above the 1st with their bottoms next to each other. What would the water level in the tube read and what is the relative difference between the levels in the two tubes as they stand side by side? I can say with some confidence that because of the compressibility of water, the levels in the two tubes will not have a relative difference of 1 meter.

My hunch is not even 0.5 mm difference.

What's the point? First, there isn't enough land locked frozen water on the planet available for melting that would create a volume of water sufficient to cover the surface of the oceans by an average of one meter in depth. (My humble guess is that there might be a quantity of land based melt water available to change the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean basin by about a third of a meter. These however, are shallow compared to the deeper oceans.) But secondly, assuming there was and that the oceans could be uniformly covered by this volume of water and that the atmospheric humidity remained consistent with the averages of the last century, what effect would the increased volume of water have on the current sea level? The rationale for assuming a tube having a length of 4.000 km is to represent the average depth of the oceans.

My estimate is above and of course any estimated increased volume of water above or below the assumed amount introduced into the oceans would be assumed to have a scalable effect.

With the information you provide, or through your own calculations using the spring constant or the compression table for sea water, I would be very happy to sanity check my own hunch and discuss the results at your convenience.

Any comments?

[Yac]

I don't actually know the answer but bumping this thread to be at the top may give you an answer .

[mrogers156]

How does one bump a post/topic to the top?? The ans is -40m btw. WIll work on another soln using a seawater col 4040m next. And then compare the 2 results. Thx

[CynthiaA]

A great source for information about the oceans and climate changes is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNEP). They have completed a report which contains within it information pertaining to ocean pressure and climate changes. The paper is entitled, "IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Water," dated Geneva 21 May 2007.

The review is open for global governmental and expert review between 21 May to 17 June 2007. This seems like a report you would want to read, and then consider submitting your thought pertaining to the ocean and water pressure. The technical paper contains a link to instructions on how to submit your thought.

Cynthia

[gullyfourmyle]

In simple terms, ice that melts while floating in the ocean such as at the North Pole won't raise sea levels at all.

Ice sitting on land that melts will raise sea levels just as when you melt an ice cube in one glass and add it to another. The level goes up.

In the past, sea levels remained relatively constant because ice melted and new ice formed in more or less equal amounts (not really but close). Now the ice is melting much faster than new ice is forming. Water levels are going to go up and a lot of locations on our maps are going to be underwater - like Florida for instance.

How much precisely it is submerged will only be of value to salvage teams.

The other part is that the melting will happen even faster than the experts are predicting.

[antigwa]

[quote="mrogers156"]

I can say with some confidence that because of the compressibility of water, the levels in the two tubes will not have a relative difference of 1 meter.

My hunch is not even 0.5 mm difference.

What's the point? First, there isn't enough land locked frozen water on the planet available for melting that would create a volume of water sufficient to cover the surface of the oceans by an average of one meter in depth.
[/quote]

I will start by saying that I am not an adherent to the global warming theory. I am a scientist working in a related domain and my belief is that the global warming is a big hoax coming from the technological and economical necessities. Scientist do not talk about global warming (except the one paid to do it) but businessmen do. That is because they see a competition from less developed countries who can produce cheaper an competitive products, using old (more pollutant) technologies, and they want to interdict (globally) those technologies, to be able to sell their own (more expensive, but cleaner) technologies. There is a war out there, and with a shot we can kill China, India (cheap work force), Iran, Russia (fossil combustibles), etc, etc, all in a split.

But my beliefs do not mean that I am blind. As a scientist I must be fair, so I will say that you are totally wrong in your calculus and have some lack of logic too. Let's split the water in the second tube in two parts, the 4000 meters above, and the 1 meter at the bottom. The 4000 meters above will compress the same way as the water in the first tube. They are 4000 meters of water. We do not consider here that the gravity is lower because this water is a bit farther from the center of the earth, but this works in your advantage, not in mine. That is the first 4000 meters of water in the second tube will compress less then the water in the first tube, providing the fact that its gravity is lower. But let's ignore that and say (in your advantage) that they compress the same. Then the difference of the two columns of water will be exactly the volume occupied by the last meter (the 4001st at the bottom) of water in the second tube. And for that pressure (roughly 400 atm) the water compress about 5.4 percent. That is, in the second tube of water the level will be higher with 94.6cm then in the first tube.

Other way to compute: you put exatly the same amount of water in both tubes, then you add 1 meter height of water in the second tube (measured sepparately). Because of the supplementary water added (its pressure and weigth) each meter of water under it will be compressed a little, direct proportional with its depth. The sum is a series that converge to 5.4cm, that is how much the TOP of the water in second tube will drop down because of the water compressed under. So its height will be X+94.6cm, where X is the height of the first column (this is NOT 4000 meters, they both compress) that you can also compute.

[gullyfourmyle]

A great theory and one that makes a lot of sense antigwa. But the reality is the Maldives are being prepared for evacuation and some islands have been evacuated due to rising sea levels. Sea water is infiltrating the fresh ground water and making it impossible to grow crops. As well, the increase in the Indian Ocean's level means the waves are sweeping so far inland that structures and plant life is being washed out to sea. That is harsh reality whether you want to believe in global warming or not.

There are many other signs around the world that the global climate is warming. In the Arctic the permafrost is melting. This is a phenomenon that has not occurred for thousands of years - not since Mastodons walked the earth. What was formerly frozen ground is now bog.

The Antarctic is falling apart and at a much faster rate than the experts on the scene predicted. Of the 150 glaciers in the lower 48 United States that existed a hundred years ago, only 15 are left. In Switzerland in one town they used to pray that the glacier above the town would not engulf the town. They had special ceremonies for it sanctioned by the pope. Now they have petitioned the pope to let them pray for the glacier to regrow as it will soon disappear altogether.

Skiing is a sport that depends on snow. It is a sport under threat in many traditional areas because of the lack of snow.

The last I read, southwestern Australia had not had rain for seven years. It was covered in National Geographic and of course the fires this year were international news.

There are no signs anywhere of global cooling.

On top of this is the Chemical Winter factor.

Chemical Winter is the transformation of Earth's atmosphere from oxygen based to solvent based due to emissions from burning crude oil products, natural gas and coal. So there is more than one thing going on.

Chemical Winter is the more serious of the two because fossil fuel solvents destroy DNA. Since the chemical emissions are being produced far faster than the environment can neutralize them, they constantly settle out of the air all over the planet and coat everything edible on a continuous and accelerating basis, you can readily understand that the global warming situation is far more complex than just warming temperatures.

Having the genetic integrity of nearly every living thing compromised in a continuous way like this is a threat to the ability of the planet to support higher life forms.

Solvents (lacquer thinners) are the chemical equivalent to nuclear fallout. In a living body, they work to "melt" or dissolve what they touch. In other words we are at the beginning of a chemical process that is attempting (by just being in play) to turn much of the planet into a chemical puddle.

As preposterous as this may seem, all you have to do is understand that solvents destroy immune systems. So what life forms have you heard of recently that have suffered extinctions, extirpations or significant population declines that aren't being explained?

How about Frogs, Bees, Mayflies, Purple Martins, Butterflies and other winged insects.

Here in Ontario, Canada where I live, we used to put insect screens over the grilles on our cars and trucks in summer to keep the fronts of our vehicles from being coated in dead bugs. Special sponges were developed for getting the bugs off windshields. We don't need them anymore. The bugs are gone. Our natural spaces that used to teem with life are now lifeless like museum dioramas. Nothing lives - or nearly nothing. Our fields used to be alive with butterflies and honey bees. Now it's an event when you see a butterfly. What do you suppose happened to the populations of just about everything that depended on those insects that were exterminated by our air pollution? Can you say population crash?

Global Warming is only one page of the changes that are going on around the world. You may not want to believe it but those of us who are old enough and spent time in the natural world can see the disasters because we can remember what once was and can see what is now. You must be too young antigwa to know.

So again, great theory but that is far from the whole story.

As far as scientists being paid to talk about global warming, there are none talking about Chemical Winter which is at the root of the entire global warming, climate change issue. So that tells you how sincere and genuine the efforts to deal with climate issues really are. There is not real will to face the indisputable facts that until we somehow eliminate oil, coal and natural gas from our life processes, we are systematically destroying the only planet we have.

Take some time to think this through from this perspective. Go and read the labels on Lacquer Thinner tins. Read the industry health warnings on some of the tonnes of chemicals that are being pumped into the atmosphere and see if you don't agree.

[gullyfourmyle]

If you look at the poll as it is right now, 2 people think that if we solve the problem, the sea level rise will be stopped in its tracks.

One person says it may be stopped after the solution is arrived at and implemented.

One person thinks there is no problem.

Anyone who has ever sailed a large boat knows that you don't turn a boat around on a dime. It ain't possible. For large ships, a 90 degree turn or a stop takes miles.

The sea level issue is bigger than any boat. Implementing a solution will take years to have an effect. Decades or hundreds of years, maybe thousands. This is a problem that has escaped our ability to control even if we were to stop all of our environmental sins tomorrow. All we can do is try and change our ways enough that we can survive as a species. Even that is far from certain. For sure, we as a species will not last that much longer. There simply are not enough resources left on the planet.

The person who thinks there is no problem is delusional.

[antigwa]

well.. that is a kind of deeper thinking as I though... I just took the poll in it's simplest way, that one could answer before or after HIMSELF solved the problem and did the calculus. I was the guy who voted yes, after I solved the problem. And the problem was if the sea level will raise few millimeters or more if we add a meter of water over it. Did you imagine that the guy was talking about solving the problem of global warming?? Oh my God! So big is your garden... The guy who posted the poll said it will raise few mm, because of compression of the water, but I proved with calculus that he is wrong.

The fragment with my beliefs about global warming I added just to show that I am not doing this calculus because I am an adept of the theory, but just because I like the calculus to be correct. That is all, and I do not think this was a reason for some people to jump to my throat.

There was nothing about melting the ice and that was nothing about where the additional meter of water is coming from. If you want to talk about melting the ice, that is a total different subject, and we can open a separate thread. Because if some miracle happens in this moment and all the ice on earth will melt instantly, the same kind of calculus shows that the sea level will raise with MANY METERS. Generally if you look on the web, the opinions split between the (first group of) people considering that the water will not rise much, because according with the Archimede's Law, the volume of the ice is equal with the volume of the water it dislocates, and the (second group of) people more realistic who consider that the water will raise more. I said "more realistic" because when the sea water freezes, the salt is "discarded" into the water. Salt do not freeze, but only pure water. So the percent of salt in sea ice is far lower then the percent of salt in sea water, that makes the sea water much heavier then the sea ice. In iceberg in sea water will float higher then an iceberg in fresh water, because it dislocates a volume of water that is equal in weight with its own water. Sorry for the "scientific" language. As an example, a cube of ice made of fresh water with a lateral of 1 meter contains 1000 cubical decimeters, that is 1000 liters. A cubical meter of water has the weight of 1000 kilograms, because fresh water has a density equal to 1. The ice cube above will weight less then 1000 kilograms, because the density of ice is lower then the density of water. Water expand when freeze, that is why your glass of water will break if you let it in refrigerator until it freeze. If melt, the cube above will give a cube of water with a lateral of only 95 cm (about), that is the weight of the ice cube will be about 850kg. So, if put in fresh water, about 10/11 (ten elevenths) of it will stay under water, dislocating a mass of water equal to about 850 kilograms. If it melts, the level of the water will not raise, and it will not fall. It will stay exactly the same, in spite of the fact that before melting, part of the ice was outside of the water surface.

If we cut the same cube of ice from an iceberg that formed from the sea water, its weight will be higher, because it contains water with a low concentration of salt. You can make this experiment by taking a plastic glass of water, add a teaspoon of salt, put it in the fridge. It will only partially freeze, and during the process, the salt concentration of remaining water will increase. That is because the salt does not freeze, but only the pure water. At the end, you will have half of the glass of ice in the top and half of the glass of very-very-very salted water at the bottom. If you separate them and wash the ice, you will see it does not taste salty. However, if you should be able to drop the temperature so fast to -20 or -40 celsius, then part of the frozen water will contain salt, because the freezing process happens too fast and there is no time to physically separate water from salt in the freezing process.

On average, seawater in the world's oceans has a salinity of about 3.5%. This means that every 1 kilogram of seawater has approximately 35 grams of salt, that is the total weight is about 1.035 kg per each liter. Sea ice has a lower salinity, about 0.9%. That is a cubical meter of sea ice will weight about 930 kilos. Remember that the same cube of fresh-water ice weighted about 850 kilos.

The salinity difference between the sea ice and sea water is about 2.6%, that means that if our sea-water ice cube floats in sea water, it dislocates a volume of water that has a weight of about 930 kilos. That is much less then a cubical meter of sea water, because such a cube will weight as said, 1035 kilos. You can do all the math.

For details, you can look for the thesis of Dr. Peter Noerdlinger on the web.

Fact is that IF the sea water will melt, by some miracle, all the water in the oceans will raise about 2.6% of all the sea water that melts. And this is MANY meters in height. But I said "IF". Because fortunately (or unfortunately) the fact stops here.

Some of you are not enough old to remember that 40-50 years ago everybody was talking about global cooling. They even made movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" and sort of.

The examples you gave are taken from only one part of the book, and generally people like you refuse to see the other side of the coin. I could give you plenty of facts that show the climate is cooling, like for example tornadoes in East-Europe, or the fact that Southern Asia saw the coldest winter since more then 70 years, that was in 2008 when in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, etc, temperatures drop in November below +12 Celsius degrees (yearly minimum for the same period is +16 Celsius).

Green Lake, on of the biggest lakes in North America dried out 150 years ago. And that time was no industry, pollution, global warming, etc.

And I have an endless list, but you can look on the web yourself. This thread is not about global warming.

Fact it that climate changes, some places get cooler year by year, some get warmer. Maybe we are now in a warming trend, or maybe we are in a cooling trend. Maybe swine flu is just a common flu with a newer fancy name, like SARS or bird flu proved later to be. Reality is that people can make money from global warming. They want to sell their new technologies, and their Tamiflu....

Just keep your eyes open....

[gullyfourmyle]

Relax. No one is jumping down your throat. It's just that since we aren't face to face, we say things in a more direct manner than we would otherwise. You can't see the smile behind the words from where you are.

Anyway, your explanation about sea ice melting failed to take into account snowfall. In arctic, antarctic and glacial regions, there is historically significant snow fall year round. The record here in Canada is 9'-0" in one night. That translates into a significant amount of ice created that has nothing to do with salt or ice forming from water in the oceans.

I have no idea how you could factor in all the snow/ice accumulation from that direction but you have to accept that when that snow and ice melts it will have an impact on sea levels to some unknown degree. Maybe you can figure it out.

Anyway, most of America's glaciers are gone. One hundred and thirty five of their glaciers disappeared since 1900. The last fifteen will be gone shortly. Those glaciers have not recognisably raised sea levels. Most of the water was captured for irrigation and other human uses. Nearly all of it was polluted at the same time. The rest of it will certainly be polluted before a single drop makes it to the coast on the west side and on the east side all that doesn't sink back into the groundwater near the top of the mountains will also be heavily polluted.

In my mind, Climate Change and Global Warming are red herrings. That is they are both being used as a smoke screen to mask the reality of Chemical Winter.

Chemical Winter, the chemical equivalent to nuclear fallout is a far more dangerous phenomenon since it involves the poisoning of not only the water, but of every living thing on the planet.

If you know anything at all about chemistry, you know that the chemicals involved in the global warming/climate change issue include Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs. These include benzenes and countless other chemicals - all of which are transdermal and attempt to liquify what they touch. The exceptions are sand, some rocks and glass.

These chemicals have passed the accumulation point where environmental factors can neutralize them before they cause significant damage. Since they are being applied continuously at a greater rate than can be neutralized, then I believe a person like you could use your math skills to figure out fairly accurately how much time it will take before it has major impact on the ability of life to remain viable on this planet.

Here is what you have to start with:

Since you are likely about my age, you probably remember that in the '70s the lead in gasoline was removed due to known serious health threats and solvents were added to fuels to take their place and to prevent engines from self destructing without lead. The solvents were added without sufficient testing but time and research have shown that the solvents are at least as much of a threat as lead was.

So solvents started being removed from ground transporation fuels and the surplus solvents were added to aviation fuels as well. The argument was that they were trying to increase performance, milage and efficiency. This fuel transition was completed around 1989 in Trinidad with Texaco being the last refiner to implement the changes.

Since the seventies, frogs have been observed in various parts of the world with observable, major abnormalities. In the nineties, Karen Lips a biologist found entire species going extinct before her eyes in a remote mountainous area of Panama. Since then frog extinctions and extirpations have been reported all around the world.

While frog population declines were deemed the main indicators denoting environmental health, other species were undergoing the same thing - notably small winged insects that most people never stop to think about. Since the seventies in my area they are all gone. That is countless species at the bottom of the food chain completely gone without a trace and no one noticed.

The common denominator for all the species around the world that have declined is air. Every animate being has to inhale and exhale. Everything has to eat. Since all of the vegetation now has a poison industrial strength pesticidal coating on every surface, the grazers at all levels of the animal kingdom are becoming a lethal biomass for the carnivorous predators.

At some point the entire system has to collapse.

As you know, everything man-made and every natural thing with the exception of rock, has a life expectancy or a fail date.

Anomalies aside, it can be predicted accurately how long a given thing will last. The entire concept of life insurance is built in morbidity tables that state fairly accurately how long a person will live given known marker criteria.

The life system of this planet has those marker criteria. The rate of accumulation of the chemicals in the atmosphere is the most significant marker. So if you can figure out the accumulation rate and set that against the level of tolerance for a marker species such as daphnia in fresh water, krill in salt water and frogs on land, you will be able to set a drop dead date for humanity.

When these creatures at the bottom of the food chain become extinct, nothing higher up the chain can survive for long, too much depends on them.

Figuring out the ice thing was fairly simple by comparison. This is more complicated.

To start with, you need to know how much toxicity these creatures can tolerate before they expire or show serious genetic impact. There may be research out there on this. I haven't looked because I didn't know anyone who could do the math. I've been looking for about ten years so far for that person. I hope it's you or you know of others who could do it or help do it.

I'm game if you are.