The Thai tsunami, Katrina and the Myanmar cyclone are models for the future

[leftofthedial]

This is how sea levels will rise--by catastrophe, not a slow rise like filling a pool.

This will happen more and more. Coastlines will move inland. Those who live in the affected areas will face death and dislocation. Our species will not have the resources to continue trying to "fix" these problems as they continue to worsen and happen more and more often.

[coriolis]

1. The tsunami had nothing to do with climate.

...

[Squatch]

2. Shhhhh....

he's on a roll.

[coriolis]

7. And slipping on the butter.

;-)

[Squatch]

11. I thought catastrophism as a science is the hallmark of creationsists

Floods! Earthquakes! Tsunamis! Dogs and cats living together!

[leftofthedial]

14. You don't know what you're talking about.

Catastrophism is a mainstream scientific concept. For example, the idea that an asteroid strike cause the extinction of dinosaurs is catastrophism. It also is thought that the Moon was created in a sudden, catastrophic collision. The "Little Ice Age" was probably triggered--or at least worsened--by volcanic eruption(s). The Big Bang itself is a catastrophistic concept.

Now you can bury your head back in the sand or wherever you keep it.

[coriolis]

18. Catastrophism is used to "prove" Noah's flood.

:eyes:
http://www.catastrophism.net/

[leftofthedial]

21. and as the basis for hundreds of scientific theories and observations

so what?

:shrug:

[Squatch]

19. The dominant (and mainstream) view of geology is uniformitarianism

Catastrophism, in and of itself, is woefully insufficient to explain the earth we see today; although very few catastrophic events (such as an impact event that may have contributed to hastening the extinction of dinosaurs, or the Missoula floods) have been accepted as having limited (biologically, geologically, geographically, and temporally) effects.

BTW, volcanic eruptions, though they may seem all smokey and scary to some people, are NOT catastrophic events, in the geologic sense...volcanoes have been erupting on this earth since the beginning and their cumulative effects have been accomodated by the climate and geology we see today.

[leftofthedial]

22. Presently ALL mass extinctions are thought to have been caused

or exacerbated by catastrophic events.

Catastrophism is not a rejection of uniformitarianism; it is part of the complete picture.

There also is a HUGE gray area between the two. What is the time limit on a "catastrophe"? One second? An hour? A day? A week? A year? A decade? A century? And what about linked catastrophes like climate change happening concurrently with a period of increased geological activity?

Arguing that because geology has been part of Earth forever it therefore can be completely explained as uniformitarianism is semantics at best and disingenuousness at worst. Plate tectonics and vulcanism are uniform; a particular volcanic eruption is catastrophic.

I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm pointing out that disasters that involve coastlines and require nations to "fix" them will continue to get worse as global warming accelerates. If you think that is wrong, then you sound an awful lot like a global warming denier.

[Squatch]

25. "I'm not saying the sky is falling"

"...We can not stop it now...Weather will become more volatile and more violent. Events like earthquakes and tsunamis will still occur. The consequences of natural disasters will continue to be devastating. Couple this with peak oil, agricultural effects of climate change and other dwindling resources, and as we go forward, nations will be less and less able to respond to such disasters."

Yeah....riiiiiiiiight. :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

27. you don't think this is true?

adios.

[Larkspur]

3. No, but higher sea levels will make future tsunamis hit deeper inland

[coriolis]

5. Well, "inland" will still be at the same place relative to the shore.

:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

6. no. but it had everything to do with the ocean

and vulnerable coastlines.

and when an earthquake or mudslide or other event triggers a tsunami in a time of rising sea levels, the effects on the coast are worsened.

[coriolis]

9. Only if there's no relocation. All coastlines are vulnerable if people live barely above sea level

no matter what it happens to be. :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

13. is the mississippi river delta more or less vulnerable now than it was 50 years ago?

you're being willfully dense.

Global warming and rising sea levels are a foregone conclusion. We can not stop it now. There is no trend toward locating populations away from coastlines. In fact, populations are still shifting TO the coasts. We are doing nothing to prepare for the inevitable climate and economic changes. Weather will become more volatile and more violent. Events like earthquakes and tsunamis will still occur. The consequences of natural disasters will continue to be devastating. Couple this with peak oil, agricultural effects of climate change and other dwindling resources, and as we go forward, nations will be less and less able to respond to such disasters.

[coriolis]

15. I only meant to point out that the tsunami had nothing to do with climate or weather.

Your OP appeared to imply a connection. The inability of nations to respond to them is completely unrelated to their causes.

edit: I think it's better if we make some attempt to be accurate...if our side fails to point out inaccuracies, you can bet somebody from the denial side will.

[leftofthedial]

16. cause of the catastrophe

is not synonymous with root cause of the tsunami

oceans, coastlines, climate change . . . any event that stresses the coasts will be increasingly magnified, probably for the rest of our lives and probably longer.

[coriolis]

17. Coasts are not capable of being stressed...only people who want to live on them are.

Please refrain from anthropomorphing a beach, it just makes you look silly.

[Squatch]

20. LOL

:thumbsup:

(anthropomorphizing)

[leftofthedial]

24. www.dictionary.com

is your friend.

[leftofthedial]

23. do you own a dictionary?

stress has more meanings than just the psychological one.

You are aware of that, right?

Silly.

[leftofthedial]

26. try educating yourself before spouting off and namecalling

ignorance truly does make you look silly.

Environmental stress refers to physical, chemical, and biological constraints on the productivity of species and on the development of ecosystems. When the exposure to environmental stressors increases or decreases in intensity, ecological responses result. Stressors can be natural environmental factors, or they may result from the activities of humans. Some environmental stressors exert a relatively local influence, while others are regional or global in their scope. Stressors are challenges to the integrity of ecosystems and to the quality of the environment.

Species and ecosystems have some capacity to tolerate changes in the intensity of environmental stressors. This is known as resistance, but there are limits to this attribute, which represent thresholds of tolerance. When these thresholds are exceeded by further increases in the intensity of environmental stress, substantial ecological changes are caused.

-snip-

ecological stress

hundreds more examples, but that's probably way more than you want to read.

[coriolis]

28. Congratulations, you have shat in your own pew. From your own cite:

"...constraints on the productivity of species." Are you prepared to claim a stretch of sand is a species?

I agree that one of us is an idiot.

[leftofthedial]

39. talk about stress

you must have an ulcer by now, just from dodging reality in this thread alone.

sheesh.

Of course species can be stressed. So can ecologies, uhh, like *coastlines*.

I don't know about "idiot," but something is definitely missing in your half of the dialogue.

[Uncle Joe]

30. I believe a future tsunami could be caused by global warming climate change.Considering that some

water based glaciers already breaking off in the Antarctic are larger than Rhode Island. Should land based glaciers of equal or greater size in the Antarctic or Greenland abruptly slide or fall off in to the ocean, it seems logical to me this mass displacing of water could create a tsunami.

[Squatch]

31. "water based glaciers"

Oh, dear Lord. :rofl:

[Uncle Joe]

33. Call it an iceberg if you prefer, but it doesn't change the premise of the logic. n/t

[Squatch]

34. But of course not. "Water based glaciers" is a perfectly apt term.

Sort of like "mineral based rocks"

[Uncle Joe]

35. Considering it's referred to as glacier in the Antarctic while floating on the water before

it breaks off, water based glacier sounds appropriate to me.

I did notice you never addressed the possible effect of a land based glacier; the size of Rhode Island or larger sliding or falling off into the ocean.

I suspect this is because you know it could cause a tsunami.

[Squatch]

36. First, show me a "land based glacier"

the size of Rhode Island that could slide off anything with enough velocity to cause a tsunami. Then, describe to me the actual mechanism that would allow this to happen.

[Uncle Joe]

38. To begin with, it hasn't happened on that scale yet, but here is a smaller example

of a land based glacier melting causing a river tsunami.

"melting glacier water drilled a 5 mi. tunnel thru glacier and then Blam!"

Here is a nice thread on total ice loss in the Antarctic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3144072

"Net WAIS Ice Loss In 2006 - 132 Billion Tons; Total Antarctic Mass Loss Up 75% In Ten Years – AFP"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x129405

Here is one more thread regarding size potential of glacier collapse.

"Antarctica's Wilkins Ice Shelf Risks Collapse"

"March 25 (Bloomberg) -- An Antarctic ice shelf bigger than Connecticut risks collapse because of global warming after a retreat that began on Feb. 28, the British Antarctic Survey said."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x110653

The mechanism is water seeping through cracks in land based glaciers forming a slippery slope underneath them. It seems logical to me when they start sliding off steep mountain sides in to the ocean, that should be one hell of a wallop.

[coriolis]

41. The largest glaciers in the world would barely make a splash even IF they could

"fall off into the water." Their mass is virtually infinitesimal compared with even a small mountainside which of course
-can- plonk into the sea (Lituya Bay on a small scale, Cumbra Vieja in the Canaries on a potentially large one.)

[Uncle Joe]

50. Do you mean this Lituya Bay?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/alaska/1958/webpages/lituyacloseup.html

The rockslide occurred along the eastern wall of the Gilbert Inlet (see figure above). The mass of rock striking the surface of the bay created a giant splash, which sent water surging to a height of 1720 feet (see figure above) across the point opposite the inlet. This initial sheet of water stripped all vegetation from the point, leaving a bare rock face, which shows up nicely on the map above, and in two of the photos below. The in addition to this initial splash, the rock slide also sent a giant local tsunami sweeping across the bay. Eyewitness accounts from the few unfortunate boaters who happened to be anchored in the bay for night, state that the wave was at least 100 feet tall at its maximum height near the head of the bay. Two of these boaters were killed by the wave while making a run for open water, the rest, amazingly, survived. The tsunami inundated approximately 5 square miles of land along the shores of Lityua Bay, sending water as far as 3,600 feet inland (see figure above), and clearing millions of trees. The barren shoreline left by the tsunami shows up nicely on the map above, and provides a good approximation of the inundation area. The photos below, taken at Lituya Bay after the tsunami, illustrate of magnitude of this event.

I'm curious, do you know how many square miles of land slid in to the water on that occasion as compared to the size of a potential glacier, the size of Connecticut?

[coriolis]

51. Of course I do...it's why I mentioned it.

You talked about a book (brick?) falling into a bathtub which is similar in scale to Lituya Bay. The biggest glaciers in the world are maybe 60 cubic miles but they are not mountains, they slide along a very minimal slope on top of rock. You seem to be of the opinion a glacier can all of a sudden gather itself into one huge lump and hop into the sea. I can't imagine how your thinking on this got so abysmally wrong.

There are no glaciers anywhere near the size of Connecticut. Either someone is lying to you or you're incapable of grasping basic geophysical facts.

[Uncle Joe]

52. Water is seeping through cracks in the glaciers forming vast pools underneath them.

I believe as the ice shelves at the bottom of those mountains and floating on the sea disappear it will be as if removing a retaining wall and those glaciers, will be sliding on the pools of water forming underneath them, not the rock.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7261171.stm

The new evidence comes from a group of glaciers covering an area the size of Texas, in a remote and seldom visited part of West Antarctica.

The "rivers of ice" have surged sharply in speed to wards the ocean.

David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey, explained: "It has been called the weak underbelly of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and the reason for that is that this is the area where the bed beneath the ice sheet dips down steepest to wards the interior.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x21686

"After Ice Shelf Collapse, Antarctic Glaciers' Flow Rate Up 200-600%

"When Antarctica’s Larsen-B ice shelf—a 10,000-year-old, 650-foot thick expanse of floating ice the size of Rhode Island—collapsed three years ago, Pedro Skvarca had a front-row seat. With the Antarctic Peninsula being swept by an unprecedented summer heat wave in February 2002, Skvarca, a glaciologist with the Argentine Antarctic Institute, jumped in a rugged twin-engine turboprop and flew off from his Antarctic research station to inspect the cliff-like seaward edge of the remote ice shelf. What he saw, Skvarca recalls, was astonishing. “The surface of the ice shelf was almost totally covered by melt ponds and lakes, and waterfalls were spilling over the top and into the ocean,” he says. Great slices of the Larsen-B’s leading edge had broken off, filling the Weddell Sea with icebergs and slush. Two weeks later, almost the entire ice shelf had disintegrated. “It was unbelievable to see how fast it had broken up. The coastline hadn’t changed for more than 9,000 years and then it changed completely in just a few weeks.”

Now scientists studying the aftermath of the collapse say it will very likely have unpleasant implications for the rest of us. The collapse of the Larsen-B and its smaller northern neighbors, the Larsen-A and Wordie Ice shelves, in the face of warmer summer temperatures has caused the vast glaciers and ice sheets behind them to begin sliding into the sea at a remarkable pace. Aerial and satellite imagery show that the glaciers behind the Larsen-B increased their seaward flow by two to six times in the months after the ice shelf’s collapse, with some of them thinning by more than 100 feet. Unlike the floating ice shelves, thinning glaciers contribute to global sea-level rise.

“The glaciers took off like a race horse after the ice shelves were removed,” says Ted Scambos, a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “Just a decade ago we glaciologists were talking about gradual changes in glaciers taking place over centuries. Now we’re seeing things that we didn’t think glaciers could do in terms of their speed of response.”

And it’s not just happening on the Antarctic Peninsula. Similar studies of glaciers entering the Amundsen Sea, some 1,200 miles away in West Antarctica, show them doubling their flow since the 1990s. This is especially worrying because the glaciers in this area drain the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a precariously balanced portion of the southern ice cap that contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 20 feet. By comparison, the sea-level rise predictions endorsed by the 2,600 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are only about two"

[coriolis]

55. Yes, all those things are indicative of very big potential problems but NOT tsunamis.

That was my original complaint with the OP. I absolutely agree that glacier -melting- (the ice shelves are not technically glaciers although they can behave similarly) as a result of global climate change is a matter for great worry but a 600% speed increase is still only feet per day. That rate would have to get to many feet per SECOND to create a tsunami risk.

The situation in Greenland is similar vis a vis affecting mean sea level and effecting changes but that is different from the 'splash' phenomenon exemplified by a tsunami.

[Uncle Joe]

57. I believe this is a dynamic which can change rapidly.

I believe the 600% speed increase is minuscule as to it's potential future speed when all hell breaks loose. Just as if you were to remove a retaining wall, the earth above it may not move noticeably and then collapse over night.

I imagine if one glacier really takes off down a mountainside, this would cause vibrations which could trigger others to go as well, it will be as an avalanche of solid ice.

[coriolis]

58. What you apparently cannot grasp is that glaciers sit on a VERY GRADUAL SLOPE

of bedrock...as do all rivers (which they are...just frozen.)

Rivers and glaciers are not oriented vertically...they simply cannot take off and run "downhill" at the kind of velocities necessary to create the amount of kinetic energy necessary to generate a tsunami. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly without some advanced mathematics. :eyes:

[Uncle Joe]

59. I don't believe it needs to be a steep slope with that kind of mass

hitting the water, I believe even an external event such as a earthquake or volcano could set it in motion.

I don't see these events as happening immediately but when the lower ice shelves are gone, that region will be vulnerable to ice slides.


Edit for P.S. If you've ever watched them launch a barge in to the river, you can see the wave ripples, and the slope isn't that steep.

[coriolis]

60. Okay...fill your bathtub up to within a couple inches of the top.

Lower a bowling ball s-l-o-w-l-y into the water. The water will rise up a little bit, gradually. Take it out and drop it in
from just above the surface of the water...let gravity do the work. Have a mop handy.

[Uncle Joe]

61. How about just letting the bowling ball roll in to the bathtub from a sleight angle,

when these glaciers slide in the to ocean, I don't believe they will necessarily be going in slowly or gently, although the angle may not be steep as a drop.

Edit for P.S. An even better experiment let a book slide off a wet iced slide in to the bathtub again I don't believe the angle needs to be steep, you will still get good wave action. The bigger the book, the greater the wave action.

[Squatch]

62. Aw jeeze...give it up.

Here are some concepts you need to bone up on:

1) Friction
2) Cylindrical spreading loss
3) Shallow water waves

- The first one is the reason a glacier the size of RI won't just plop into the ocean.
- The second one is the reason, even if one did just plop into the ocean, why it's waves won't be very large at all when they make landfall at any populated beachfront.
- The third one is the reason, even if a glacier the size of RI plopped into the ocean, it COULDN'T form a tsunami.

So...please stop.

[Uncle Joe]

63. Regarding friction, not if it's floating on shallow melt water.

Maybe you're correct on the other two, I guess time will tell.

[Squatch]

64. Ooops...I forgot to add a term to my list:

4) Buoyancy.

For fuck's sake.

[Uncle Joe]

65. I believe if a glacier the size of Rhode Island, Connecticut or larger slide in to the ocean, many

people will need to be buoyant, whether it's from a sudden tsunami or overnight flooding.

[Squatch]

66. So a glacier...WHICH IS ALREADY FLOATING...will cause sea levels to rise?

"Regarding friction, not if it's floating on shallow melt water." -Uncle Joe.

Dude...please...give up.

[Uncle Joe]

67. From my post 52

52. "Water is seeping through cracks in the glaciers forming vast pools of water underneath them."

These are glaciers currently on land but melt water is seeping through cracks and crevices forming pools of water underneath, but they haven't slid in to the ocean yet.

[Squatch]

37. And, while you're tracking down that RI-sized "land based glacier", can you define this word for me?

"Tsunami"

[Uncle Joe]

42. Here are two more that could give Rhode Island a run for it's money.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5294659

"Nov. 4, 2005 — An iceberg about the size of the Hawaiian island of Maui has split into three pieces in the frigid Antarctic waters, the National Ice Center reported this week."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3059185

"Antarctic Ice Chunk 7 Times The Size Of Manhattan Collapses"

"WASHINGTON — A chunk of Antarctic ice about seven times the size of Manhattan suddenly collapsed, putting an even greater portion of glacial ice at risk, scientists said Tuesday."

According to my dictionary. Tsunami or Tidal Wave; "An unusually great destructive wave sent in shore by an earthquake or a very strong wind."

I contend it makes no difference whether a tsunami or Tidal Wave is caused by an earthquake, very strong wind or gigantic land based glaciers sliding or falling in to the ocean, the destructive result would be similar. The common denominator is massive displacing of water. You can try this at home fill your bathtub or sink with water, drop a heavy object in to it such as a large book and see what happens.

[LakeSamish706]

4. Yep, we are in serious times as far as weather in the world goes and will only...

get worse.

[Mountainman]

8. Looks like you are right.

Another thing I see is the unwillingness of governments to help out the poor masses of people. It is like serendipitous genocide. Which brings me to another thought. When ever disaster hits the wealthy ruling class seem to escape the suffering. That may be why they are not worried about humanly caused global warming. They think they can cash in on it now and buy their way out of trouble in the future. What scares them is not weather related disaster but revolt by the masses.

[leftofthedial]

10. the ONLY issue is the class war

all our other problems are symptoms

[ensho]

12. true

nt

[lovuian]

29. Yep I weep for Myanmar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47uB5MVGT0o

Now more die from disease and no water

[Uncle Joe]

32. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, leftoftthedial.

[leftofthedial]

40. I know that DU is a "big tent,"

but I never expected to encounter rabid global warming deniers here.

:shrug:

Thanks.

[coriolis]

43. Now, in addition to being mistaken you are also disingenuous.

NOBODY has denied global climate change...only challenged your own misconceptions. Give up before you look even more ridiculous.

[leftofthedial]

45. surrender before I taunt you further!

I unclog my nose in your direction.

[coriolis]

47. Please do not booger-fling me!

My kleenex is depletatory. ;-)

[leftofthedial]

53. LOL

[Uncle Joe]

44. I suspect election season has an effect

on new membership, of course I could be wrong.

[leftofthedial]

46. One of them at least has been around for awhile

but seems to have some sort of deficit today.

[Uncle Joe]

49. I have days like that, I make more errors

if I start posting before I have my coffee.

[Squatch]

48. Of, f**k off. Nobody here is denying global warming

[leftofthedial]

54. I am.

The temperature must have dropped 10 degrees in the last hour...

Besides, I live 1200 miles from any coast, so I don't care.

The sky doesn't have too far to fall way up here anyway.

[coriolis]

56. You will have a birds-eye view of the rapture from there!

Deys gwine ta hebbin!

[leftofthedial]

68. BTW

I have f**ked off.

[ileus]

69. all 3 engineered disasters by Bushco...