Rising Ocean Levels - Explained

[wnlight]

I have a theory that I wish to post to get members’ reactions. This theory has been glommed together from various readings. This is my answer to the question of what is causing the sea levels to rise. They are rising, but is it caused by human activity? You may have already thought this out and have reached a conclusion. I would like to read your response whether or not it is in agreement with my conclusion.

I claim that the water level is rising mostly due to thermal expansion. An extremely small rise in water temperature will cause the amount of expansion that we see today. Large bodies of water do not warm from heat applied to the surface. Except, of course, in the very top layer of the water. In other words, water warms from bottom up and not from top down. Increased heat from the Earth’s core is slowly warming the lowest layers in the ocean. Now, we do not have thermometers in the core to directly measure temperatures there, but there is much indirect evidence of an increase.

You might say that the water temperature at the bottom of the oceans is extremely cold. I agree. However, a slight increase would still leave the water to be extremely cold and yet cause the expansion. I have not attempted to apply metrics to my theory, so my theory is closer to a reasonable conjecture.

You might question if the core is really warming, and I would say to look at the greatly increased activity of world-wide vulcanism and tectonic movement. You might say that all this has happened many times in our pre-history, and I would answer, "Most likely, yes."

[Fellow Aspirant]

Your thinking w.r.t. the cause of rising ocean levels is spot on (are you a scientist?) : the main cause of rising sea levels is global warming. Where you veer from scientific orthodoxy, however, is in what you suggest is the source of the heat. Global warming/ocean warming is the result of more heat energy entering the atmosphere. Here's a fairly straightforward explanation from the Centers for Ocean Science Educational excellence (link below)

"Warming Oceans Mean Sea Levels Will Rise

It is estimated that most of the increase in sea level will be from as the result of global warming, which will cause thermal expansion of the oceans. Thermal expansion is caused when seawater expands because of the higher temperature of the water. Since the oceans absorb heat from the atmosphere, when the atmosphere becomes warmer so will the oceans. Warm seawater has a greater volume than cold seawater. As the temperature of the ocean increases so will the total ocean volume. The increased volume will cause the level of the water in the oceans to rise.

Two factors will contribute to this accelerated rise in sea level. First, although
the oceans have an enormous heat storage capacity, if global atmospheric temperatures rise, the oceans will absorb heat and expand. A greater volume of ocean water due to thermal expansion will lead to a rise in sea level. Second, rising temperatures willcause the ice and snowfields to melt, thereby
increasing the amount of water in the oceans. It should be noted that only the melting of land-based ice and snow increases sea level. The melting of floating ice will not affect sea level. This can be demonstrated to your students by partially filling a glass container with ice and water and marking the water level on the glass. When the ice cubes melt, note that the water level remains the same."

Source:
Centers for Ocean Science Educational Excellence
http://cosee.umaine.edu/cfuser/resources/tr_sea_level.pdf

Brian

[Hervé]

Have a look at this post: NASA study finds volcanic magma plume under Antarctica may explain ice sheet instability (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50036-The-Arctic-is-melting-the-Antarctic-is-freezing.-What-does-this-mean&p=1189644&viewfull=1#post1189644)

... or this one: Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50036-The-Arctic-is-melting-the-Antarctic-is-freezing.-What-does-this-mean&p=1173281&viewfull=1#post1173281)

... not to forget this one (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97192-It-s-So-Obvious-Most-Everyone-Misses-It...&p=1172823&viewfull=1#post1172823) (<---) that should get a few heads to be scratched...

Then, of course, there is this one: Today’s sea-level rise is BELOW normal (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91560-Sinking-Grounds...-Not-Rising-Waters.&p=1169985&viewfull=1#post1169985)

... not to dismiss thermal expansion... but... then, it would indicate a general cooling compared to previous eons :) since the few millimetres of global sea rise is now below the "normal" average trend if not falling (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91560-Sinking-Grounds...-Not-Rising-Waters.&p=1169273&viewfull=1#post1169273) (<---).

[wnlight]

It is known that the Earth’s magnetosphere is weakening. This will allow more cosmic particles to enter the Earth’s core, thus heating the core. This heat must go somewhere. It has been recently discovered that there has been an increase of heat escaping the core through the mantle via lava plumes. This has been the major source of Ocean temperature rising, ocean water thermal expansion, and ultimate sea level rising. There have been discoveries of magnetosphere cycles and spikes over the long run which must have caused the changes which we now observe to have actually happened many times before our pre-history.

We may now be witnessing an approach to Earth magnetic field shift which most likely would be accompanied by even weaker field strength, even greater core heating, and higher ocean water temperatures. Time will tell.

Also, I suspect that it is wise to differentiate the two sources of ocean water heating (1) the surface heating from atmospheric warming above and (2) the heating of ocean water from the core of the Earth below.

Heating from the above would make little or no difference in the over-all depth ocean temperatures except to warm the ocean surface. However, surface warming would certainly affect climate and weather.

Heating from below will ever so slightly warm the entire ocean and cause the thermal expansion which will perhaps cause the elimination of some small island nations.

I find it difficult to see how the core heating might possibly be caused be human activity. Yet is human activity causing atmospheric warming? Time will tell.

The entire scene of Earth heating and cooling is actually very complex. Even as thermal expansion occurs, there is also a different process of accumulation of ice in Antartica that may be reducing ocean levels or slowing down the effects of expansion. Also, different parts of our planet heat and cool differently.

The Earth seems to be very good at compensating for what ever changes that it experiences. Maybe it IS alive! Hopefully, it will never attempt to compensate for what we humans do to it.

[Baby Steps]

average ocean depth 3.7 km. The top bit may be being heated by the atmosphere, but the bulk, by far, below the thermocline, would expand due to geological processes. Measurement of these processes is not well researched, but vents etc at deep levels may be a big factor.Could not find any strong quantification of deep ocean temperature changes. Could not find anything definitive regarding transfers of heat from shallows to depths.

Anecdotally, it is definitely rising. The thames flood barrier is a good indicator.

[wnlight]

If the sea levels are not currently rising - great! I am not sure how well one can tell. I could call my old neighbor along one of the canals in Satellite Beach, Florida to see if the water level has changed in the thirty years since we lived there. :=) His answer would only be one data point out of the thousands necessary to draw some conclusion. Or I could check with an old employer, NASA, to see what they say. Should anyone believe that? NASA = Never A Straight Answer.

The idea of water level changes in the Earth's oceans reminds me of pouring water into my dog's bowl while he is drinking from it. How do you know which process provides the controlling factor?

My conjecture of magnetosphere weakening causing core heating by cosmic rays causing thermal expansion causing ocean level rising would require significant study in more than one scientific discipline in areas that have been mostly ignored over the years.

[Satori]

Could the answer reside not in "either/or", but rather both warming of the water and melting ice caps and calfing, to some degree.

ADD. I see also that there is a thread on sinking land as a cause of what appears to be rising waters. So, it could be all three, and not just one or two.

[DeDukshyn]

Could the answer reside not in "either/or", but rather both warming of the water and melting ice caps and calfing, to some degree.

ADD. I see also that there is a thread on sinking land as a cause of what appears to be rising waters. So, it could be all three, and not just one or two.

We also might add in the huge water reservoir within the earth's crust that exceeds all our surface water, may be linked to and may (if history indicates) be prone to coming to the surface through unknown (but imagined) mechanics occasionally, and/or the influence of wnlight's and Herve's considerations ... it suddenly becomes quite more complex ...

[Hervé]

[...]
... I could check with an old employer, NASA, to see what they say. Should anyone believe that? NASA = Never A Straight Answer.
[...]
NASA's answer:


Sea levels are falling (https://www.iceagenow.info/sea-levels-are-falling/)

NASA satellite sea level observations for the past 24 years show that – on average – sea levels have been rising 3.4 millimeters per year. That’s 0.134 inches, about the thickness of a dime and a nickel stacked together, per year.



http://www.wriwx.com/htmlmail/yacht/html_newsletter_dec_2016/Raw/Sea%20Height%20Variation.png
See larger interactive graph: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/



...that’s the average. But when you focus in on 2016 and 2017, you get a different picture.



https://www.iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Sea-level-Jan16-to-Mar-17-1.jpg


Sea levels fell in 2016, and with all of this winter’s record-breaking snowfall, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decline again this year.

[sigma6]

Is the premise that the oceans are rising even accurate?... more on NASA study...

NASA confirms: Sea levels have been FALLING across the planet for two years … media SILENT (https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07-26-nasa-confirms-sea-levels-have-been-falling-across-the-planet-for-two-years-media-silent.html)

[Ewan]

https://i.imgur.com/2WV4Cm7.jpg

Good to know we don't need to concern ourselves further about rising oceans then.

However, as it seems to be a boon to concerns of man-made climate change and raking in big bucks one has to wonder if there's much truth to it at all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

[Hervé]

Current data from: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/


36480


with the explanation blurb from NASA:
Sea Level

LATEST MEASUREMENT: July 2017 84.8 mm

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.
Those "scientists" writing that piece aren't phased out that the former trend has been going on since the 1870s, at a steady pace, in spite of "global warming" fluctuations nor that the current down trend doesn't bode well for positive thermal expansion and global ice melts... never mind that it doesn't fit very well with increased volcanic activities nor the weakening of the earth's magnetosphere.

[wnlight]

Thanks Hervé and Sigma6 for the latest info on ocean water levels. Thanks for the links. I still do not believe anything that NASA publishes, but what you have found might help silence the alarmist propaganda that I also never believed. It is clear to me that the Earth's core has been heating, so if the ocean water levels have been dropping, then there are other processes at work. No surprise there. The polar bear population has been increasing. Since I live in the Andes mountains, the rising water alarms did not bother me much. I started this thread simply to explain that the cause of rising water around the world did not have much to do with human activity. I also agree that an increase of CO2 in our air would be great for plant life, but again there is little relation between CO2 levels and human activity.

The concept of rising and falling land relative to sea level is another interesting story. I have already had much to say about that in a previous thread and on my web site, www.light.ec. I will simply add that it looks like the militarization of Nicola Tesla's findings might very well negatively influence the ongoing natural changes in sea levels for many locations around the world.

The ice will come whether we want it or not. Once it is here, we will hate it. Hopefully, it will only last a few decades.

[Foxie Loxie]

What if the entire planet itself is expanding? Hope that's not too dumb a question; not having a scientific mind! :Angel:

[Bill Ryan]

Since the oceans absorb heat from the atmosphere, when the atmosphere becomes warmer so will the oceans.

A disclaimer. :) I met wnlight (Warren, who lives locally) for lunch the other day, and we were talking about this. I encouraged him to start a thread, hoping that Hervé (who is a PhD level geophysicist) would reply. :bigsmile:

We both agreed that atmospheric warming would hardly affect the oceans: it'd be like trying to heat a pan of water with a hair dryer. It's MUCH more efficient if the heat comes directly from the bottom of the pan.

[wnlight]

What if the entire planet itself is expanding? Hope that's not too dumb a question; not having a scientific mind! :Angel:

Never a too dumb question. I read into your question that you mean expansion without a change of total mass - only becoming a lessor density. Actually, some say the Earth is expanding, but how to measure this? The expansion is likely too small to precisely measure. When I was doing satellite orbital calculations back in the 1980s, we never made compensation for an expanding Earth. Of course, small meteorites are hitting our planet all the time, and even the burnt meteors contribute some mass.

BTW, NASA tells us no. According to them, our planet is not expanding.
But who should ever believe NASA = Never A Straight Answer?

[Fellow Aspirant]

Well, the whole global warming thing is incredibly complex, as we know. That the earth is warming is beyond question. What is causing it to heat up is quite a can of worms, apparently. As we all like to look at charts and pictures, here's my contribution, showing the amount and rate at which the planet's oceans are taking on thermal energy ...

36492

As we get deeper into our discussion, we will need to explore the mechanics of how the heating of just a few milimeters of the the top layer of the ocean is able to have a gigantic effect on the lower layers, making them retain heat energy.

Later for that. Let's see, first, if there's any agreement regarding the chart info displayed in this chart.

Cheers,

Brian

[bluestflame]

what if all the living planets are expanding , each at different stages of growth hence the different sizes , what if at the core is dimension links where energy is fed in from different universes/dimensions , the heat produced in the process of what "materialises" ie becomes matter in this reality , why is the earths core still hot enough to melt rock after millions of years with only the suns rays to provide heat ( supposedly)

just a few thoughs i've had for a fair while now


oh yeah and where does the sun get its heat from is the sun expanding ?

unbind your thought process you might be amazed what you know

[nenosema]

Since a large nuclear power plant that utilizes a once-through cooling system may withdraw 800 million to 1 billion gallons of water a day, these plants are usually built next to rivers, lakes, or oceans.

Once-Through cooling As the name implies, once-through cooling uses water a single time to cool and condense steam produced for electricity generation. Water produced from the condensed steam is reused in the generation process, but the water used for cooling is discharged back into the lake, river or ocean, with a temperature increase of up to 30 degrees.vi
The temperature increase in the bodies of water can have serious adverse effects on aquatic life. Warm water holds less oxygen than cold water, thus discharge from once-through cooling systems can create a “temperature squeeze” that elevates the metabolic rate for fish.vii Additionally, suction pipes that are used to intake water can draw plankton, eggs and larvae into the plant’s machinery, while larger organisms can be trapped against the protective screens of the pipes. Blocked intake screens have led to temporary shut downs and NRC fines at a number of plants.
Recirculating cooling While once-through cooling systems withdraw 25,000 to 60,000 gallons of water for each megawatt-hour of electricity produced, recirculating cooling systems, also known as closed-cycle cooling systems, withdraw only 800 to 2,600 gallons per megawatt-hour and are used when nearby water sources lack sufficient volume to allow once-through cooling. After water is withdrawn from a source to cool steam, it is then cooled and pumped back into the condenser for reuse. Though plants with closed cycle cooling systems withdraw far less water than once-through cooling systems, they consume (through evaporation) about 600-800 gallons per megawatt-hour, roughly half the amount they withdraw."
-Union of Concerned Scientists


http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/fact-sheet-water-use.pdf
(if your're on mobile the pdf may download by clicking the link)

[Foxie Loxie]

I wonder how The Electric Universe plays into all this? :confused: Thank you, nenosema, for enlightening us as to the cooling of the nuclear plants!

[Hervé]

From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/

Fact check for Andrew Glikson – Ocean heat has paused too (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/)
Posted on February 25, 2013 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/) by Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/)

Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused (http://theconversation.edu.au/fact-check-has-global-warming-paused-12439)? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data. He writes:
As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20×1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4×1022 joules.
…
To summarise, claims that warming has paused (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html) over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/20580/width668/gvzj8y37-1361767576.jpg (https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/20580/area14mp/gvzj8y37-1361767576.jpg)

Figure 3: Build-up in Earth’s total heat content. http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

(http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------


Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/) system?

Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png?w=640&h=518 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png)


From PMEL at http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/


The plot shows the 18-year trend in 0-700 m Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) estimated from in situ data according to Lyman et al. 2010 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09043). The error bars include uncertainties from baseline climatology, mapping method, sampling, and XBT bias correction.

Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. Additional displays of the upper OHCA are available in the Plots section (http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/uohca-plots.html).

As Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say: “Bazinga!“

h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the PMEL graph.


UPDATE: See the above graph converted to temperature anomaly in this post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/) [reproduced in part, below].


Ocean Temperature And Heat Content (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/)
Posted on February 25, 2013 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/)by Willis Eschenbach (http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/weschenbach/)
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Anthony has an interesting post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/) up discussing the latest findings regarding the heat content of the upper ocean.

He notes that there has been no significant change in the OHCA in the last decade. It’s a significant piece of information. I still have a problem with the graph, however, which is that the units are meaningless to me. What does a change of 10 zeta-joules mean? So following my usual practice, I converted the graph to a more familiar units, degrees C. Let me explain how I went about that.

To start with, I digitized the data from the graph. Often this is far, far quicker than tracking down the initial dataset, particularly if the graph contains the errors. I work on the Mac, so I use a program called GraphClick, I’m sure the same or better is available on the PC. I measured three series: the data, the plus error, and the minus error. I then put this data into an Excel spreadsheet, available here (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96723180/pmel%20upper%20ocean%20data.xlsx).

Then all that remained was to convert the change in zeta-joules to the corresponding change in degrees C. The first number I need is the volume of the top 700 metres of the ocean. I have a spreadsheet for this. Interpolated, it says 237,029,703 cubic kilometres. I multiply that by 62/60 to adjust for the density of salt vs. fresh water, and multiply by 10^9 to convert to tonnes. I multiply that by 4.186 mega-joules per tonne per degree C. That tells me that it takes about a thousand zeta-joules to raise the upper ocean temperature by 1°C.

Dividing all of the numbers in their chart by that conversion factor gives us their chart, in units of degrees C. Calculations are shown on the spreadsheet.


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/degrees-pmel-0-700m-heat-content-anomaly.jpg?w=640 (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/degrees-pmel-0-700m-heat-content-anomaly.jpg)
Figure 2. Upper ocean heat content anomaly, 0-700 metres, in degrees C.


I don’t plan to say a whole lot about that, I’ll leave it to the commenters, other than to point out the following facts:

• The temperature was roughly flat from 1993-1998. Then it increased by about one tenth of a degree in the next five years to 2003, and has been about flat since then.

• The claim is made that the average temperature of the entire upper ocean of the planet is currently known to an error (presumably one sigma) of about a hundredth of a degree C.

• I know of no obvious reason for the 0.1°C temperature rise 1998-2003, nor for the basically flat temperatures before and after.

• The huge increase in observations post 2002 from the addition of the Argo floats didn’t reduce the error by a whole lot.

My main question in this revolves around the claimed error. I find the claim that we know the average temperature of the upper ocean with an error of only one hundredth of a degree to be very unlikely … the ocean is huge beyond belief. This claimed ocean error is on the order of the size of the claimed error in the land temperature records, which have many more stations, taking daily records, over a much smaller area, at only one level. Doubtful.

I also find it odd that the very large increase in the number of annual observations due to the more than 3,000 Argo floats didn’t decrease the error much …

As is common in climate science … more questions than answers. Why did it go up?
Why is it now flat? Which way will the frog jump next?

Regards to everyone,

w.

Repost from: (here) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?p=649649#post649649)

[Hervé]

As for the "hair-dryer vs. stove heating" comparison:

As many as ten million underwater volcanoes currently estimated (https://iceagenow.info/many-ten-million-underwater-volcanoes/)

By Robert W. Felix November 16, 2016 (https://iceagenow.info/many-ten-million-underwater-volcanoes/) Robert (https://iceagenow.info/author/xilef/)

Ten million underwater volcanoes

And we wonder what is heating our seas

We’ve learned a lot in the last 25 years, especially when it comes to underwater volcanoes. When I began researching and writing Not by Fire but by Ice in 1991, scientists guestimated that there were 10,000 submarine volcanoes in the entire world.

Two years later, marine geophysicists discovered 1,133 previously unmapped underwater volcanoes off the coast of Easter Island.

And they were huge. (Still are.) Some of the newly-found volcanoes rose almost 1½ miles above the seafloor. Even then, their peaks remained about 1½ miles below the water’s surface. They’re packed into a relatively small area about the size of New York state.

We have no idea how many volcanoes may be lurking beneath the seas. What we do know, is that they are pumping awesome amounts of red-hot basalt – up to 1,200ºC (2,200ºF) hot – into the inky black water.


https://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Seafloor-eruption_2.jpg
Superheated molten lava about 1,200ºC (2,200ºF) erupts, producing a bright flash as it blows into the water before settling back to the sea floor. Image courtesy of NSF and NOAA Beginning with the first edition of Not by Fire but by Ice, I made the audacious suggestion that those underwater volcanoes were heating our seas. (See Chapter 10, “Fish Stew.” )


Global-warming alarmists scoffed. A mere 11,000 submarine volcanoes could not possibly be heating the seas. Impossible. After all, the oceans cover 71 percent of our planet.

But the number of underwater volcanoes kept climbing. By 2005, NASA was forced to admit that there might be one million submarine volcanoes. As many as 75,000 of those underwater behemoths soar half-a-mile above the surrounding seafloor and several thousand of those, in turn, might be active.

Even so, global-warming alarmists never wavered. One million underwater volcanoes were not enough to heat the seas.

Still, the discoveries kept coming.

Soon, the estimated number of submarine volcanoes had jumped to more than three million (https://iceagenow.info/three-million-underwater-volcanoes-wrong/).

But any thought that three million underwater volcanoes might affect ocean temperature was considered heretical. I mean, natural forces couldn’t possibly be heating the seas. Could they? Let’s keep blaming humans.

How long can this denial continue? Especially with ever more discoveries coming to light.

Reader Joe Franco just sent me a study by professors Fisher and Wheat that estimates the number of hydrothermally active seamounts at somewhere between 100,000 and 10,000,000. (“Hydrothermally active” means they are heating the water.)

You read that right: Ten million!

The two professors base their conclusion on the fact that a significant fraction of the seamounts already surveyed appear to be hydrothermally active.

These seamounts are also huge. As many as a million of those planetary-sized hot water heaters have a diameter greater than 7 km and stand more than 2 km high (more than 4.2 miles across and 1.2 miles high).

That’s taller than New Hampshire’s Mt. Washington, which, at 6,289 feet, stands almost exactly 1.2 miles high. Mt. Washington is the highest peak in the Northeastern United States

As if that weren’t enough, Fisher and Wheat estimate that another 1 to 10 million smaller hydrothermal features (such as black smokers) may dot the ocean floor. Those “smaller hydrothermal features” stand some 100 meters (330 ft) high.

So, what do we have here?

A “significant fraction” of a million seamounts taller than Mount Washington, and up to ten million smaller hydrothermal features, the height of a 30-story building, are pumping vast amounts of heat into the seas, and we refuse to admit that they could be affecting ocean temperatures?

I think it’s time to wake up.

Repost from: (here) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?p=1114568#post1114568)


Related:
Earth Changes 2010 to Date (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?299-Earth-Changes-2010-to-Date&p=819641&highlight=ocean+temperature#post819641)

[bluestflame]

well, if you boil a pot from underneath , might take a while but eventually the water will get hot

seems to require a lot more heat if you try to boil it from above

[Hervé]

Now, for something to take one out of the "box" errr... bubble:

Volcanoes are erupting all over the place right now. Scientists have figured out why: A minute slowdown in the planet's rotation (http://theconversation.com/could-there-really-be-such-a-thing-as-volcano-season-32060)

Robin Wylie The Conversation (http://theconversation.com/could-there-really-be-such-a-thing-as-volcano-season-32060)
Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:36 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s11/221622/medium/iceland_volcano_lightning_2_19.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s11/221622/full/iceland_volcano_lightning_2_19.jpg)


The Earth seems to have been smoking a lot recently. Volcanoes are erupting in Iceland (https://theconversation.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-icelands-volcanic-eruption-31152), Hawaii, Indonesia, Ecuador and Mexico right now. Others, in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea (https://theconversation.com/move-over-iceland-tavurvur-in-papua-new-guinea-is-the-volcano-to-watch-31130), erupted recently but seem to have calmed down. Many of these have threatened homes and forced evacuations. But among their spectators, these eruptions raise this question: Is there such a thing as a season for volcanic eruptions?

While volcanoes may not have "seasons" as we know them, scientists have started to discern intriguing patterns in their activity.

Eruptions caused by a shortened day

The four seasons are caused by the Earth's axis of rotation tilting toward and away from the sun. But our planet undergoes another, less well-known change, which affects it in a more subtle way, perhaps even volcanically.

Due to factors like the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, the speed at which the Earth rotates constantly changes. Accordingly the length of a day actually varies from year to year. The difference is only in the order of milliseconds. But new research suggests that this seemingly small perturbation could bring about significant changes on our planet - or more accurately, within it.

A study published in the journal Terra Nova (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ter.12073/abstract) in February showed that, since the early 19th century, changes in the Earth's rotation rate tended to be followed by increases in global volcanic activity. It found that, between 1830 and 2013, the longest period for which a reliable record was available, relatively large changes in rotation rate were immediately followed by an increase in the number of large volcanic eruptions. And, more than merely being correlated, the authors believe that the rotation changes might actually have triggered these large eruptions.

Altering the spin of a planet, even by a small amount, requires a huge amount of energy. It has been estimated that changes in the Earth's rotation rate dissipate around 120,000 petajoules of energy each year - enough to power the United States for the same length of time. This energy is transferred into the Earth's atmosphere and subsurface. And it is this second consequence that the Terra Nova authors believe could affect volcanoes.

The vast quantities of energy delivered to the subsurface by rotation changes are likely to perturb its stress field. And, since the magma that feeds volcanic eruptions resides in the Earth's crust, stress variations there may make it easier for the liquid rock to rise to the surface, and thereby increase the rate of volcanic eruptions.

The Terra Nova study is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, the idea that minute changes to the Earth's spin could affect volcanic motions deep within the planet is an intriguing one.

Read the rest of this article here (http://theconversation.com/could-there-really-be-such-a-thing-as-volcano-season-32060).

-------------------------------------------


SOTT Comment (https://www.sott.net/article/290958-Volcanoes-are-erupting-all-over-the-place-right-now-Scientists-have-figured-out-why-A-minute-slowdown-in-the-planets-rotation): Finally, some government-approved scientists have
1.) noticed the increase in volcanic activity, and

2.) connected it with a minute slowdown in planetary rotation.
It needs to be further explained, however, that the 'seasonal' changes to patterns of erupting volcanoes marry with 'seasonal' changes to patterns of other climatological, seismic and cosmic phenomena. There aren't just more volcanoes erupting now. There are more earthquakes (https://www.sott.net/article/281068-Earthquake-frequency-increasing-Rate-of-strong-quakes-doubles-in-2014) now. There is more precipitation (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100036.htm) now. There is more snow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/04/fall-snow-cover-in-northern-hemisphere-was-most-extensive-on-record-even-with-temperatures-at-high-mark/) now. There are stronger storms (http://www.livescience.com/28489-sandy-after-six-months.html) now. There is more methane outgassing (https://www.sott.net/article/290704-Large-volumes-of-methane-being-released-in-Arctic-Ocean) now. There is more heat coming up from the oceans (https://www.sott.net/article/269256-Volcanic-eruptions-rising-CO2-boiling-oceans-and-why-man-made-global-warming-is-not-even-wrong) now. There are more meteor fireballs (https://www.sott.net/article/271892-2013-saw-a-dramatic-increase-in-meteor-fireballs-What-does-2014-have-in-store) now. There are more comets in the solar system (https://www.sott.net/article/264372-NASA-Sharp-increase-in-comets-entering-inner-solar-system) now. There are more cosmic rays reaching Earth (https://www.sott.net/article/287751-Solar-system-wide-climate-change-More-galactic-cosmic-rays-are-reaching-Earth-than-normal) now.

Etcetera, etcetera.

All of it is inter-related, which is why climatology alone cannot explain what is going on. Only a (truly) multi-disciplinary approach - one that is disinterested in biased assumptions that improve chances of receiving grants - can account for all the observation data.

SOTT.net has been saying for years that a slowdown in the planet's rotation can account for much of what has unfolded in terms of global planetary and climate chaos in the last decade or so.

The question is: what is causing the planet's rotation to slow down?

It cannot simply be "factors like the gravitational pull of the sun and moon" because the same thing is happening to other (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9100-saturns-rotation-puts-astronomers-in-a-spin.html#.VKsLm3tpVUM) planets (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/15/3431586.htm) in the solar system!

[Hervé]

well, if you boil a pot from underneath , might take a while but eventually the water will get hot

seems to require a lot more heat if you try to boil it from above
That's because of one of those pesky phenomenon known as "convection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection)": warmer, less dense liquids have that tendency to rise up above denser, colder liquids and create "convection currents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Convection_cells)"... so... heating a liquid's top layers has little to no chance of sinking and disturbing colder, denser layers.

With water, there is another one of those nature's weirdness that's taking place due to the physical properties of water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_water_and_ice):
Usually, the solid form of a liquid is heavier, denser than its corresponding liquid form...

... but for water:

ice "floats"!


That is, water's solid form is lighter than its liquid form... and that's the reason why oceans and lake bottoms are not frozen solid :) ... just ice caps at the poles and ice rinks on lakes.
Water is densest at 4 °C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_water_and_ice):

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#/media/File:Density_of_ice_and_water_(en).svg)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Density_of_ice_and_water_%28en%29.svg/220px-Density_of_ice_and_water_%28en%29.svg.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#/media/File:Density_of_ice_and_water_(en).svg)
Density of ice and water as a function of temperature

[Baby Steps]

I think you would have to be blind not to notice that vulcanism - in the areas the we see - the land - is increasing. It follows that it is very likely to be happening under the sea.

What could slow down the Earth's rotation?

I can think of two ways..

1. an external force acts against the inertial spin of the planet. This would have to be a large body nearby, and probably magnetic. So this is not happening.

2. The other way relates to density variations. Remember the spinning skater. They have a fixed amount of spin momentum. But they can change their rate of revolutions, for the same momentum, but moving mass about. If they put their arms out, the spin rate slows down. Could this have implications for the Earth? Well, only if there are big variances in density by depth. Check this (http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry57.html). There are. The outer core is denser than the mantle. So if a bit of that increased density moves outward, we have a possible mechanism for slight spin rate reduction.

How could this be occurring? I can only guess at heating or magnetism. We know the Earth's magnetic field is weakening too....

[Bruno]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/215926/20171120/there-will-be-more-major-earthquakes-in-2018-scientists-say-lets-be-prepared.htm

More Major Earthquakes In 2018: Why?

New research presented by the University of Colorado's Roger Bilham and the University of Montana's Rebecca Bendick at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America claimed that there will be an increase in the number of major earthquakes starting 2018.

The surge in devastating earthquakes, according to the scientists, is connected to changes in the speed at which the Earth rotates. The team behind the study believes that variations on the world's rotation speed could result in the release of massive amounts of underground energy that will trigger the earthquakes.

"The changes to the Earth's rotation are miniscule, as the effects include changing the lengths of days by just one millisecond. However, that will be enough to trigger more earthquakes, according to the study. There is no definite explanation on their connection, but the scientists believe that it has something to do with the behavior of the Earth's core."

I've seen quite a few mainstream news articles talking about increasing earthquakes related to the slowing of the Earths rotation.

Interesting times we live in.

[amor]

I have two additional possibilities to add to the confusion of global warming???
Only a few days ago I realized that we do not have a Halogen Sun but Geoengineering (chemtrails) have given us a Halogen Atmosphere which appears to focus the sun's rays, much like a magnifying glass, perhaps causing forest fires and heating the surface of the ocean.

The other idea is that if the North Magnetic Pole is truly moving towards Siberia, then the Cold is also moving North with it. In addition, relative to the NMP, all the land masses of the West will be moving towards the Heat of the Equator. Also the Ocean Bulge of water at the Equator will move North with the NMP. Places like Miami will suddenly experience a "Rise in Water Levels." Antarctica will move North toward Australia. The Countries of the Eastern hemisphere will experience Cooling as they are actually being approached by the NMP. The melting of the core metals which result in movement of the NMP may be a cyclic movement happening in our galaxy of which we are a part. One side of the planet balances out the other. Now where DEFORESTATION enters the picture, there is very real danger of our dying of lack of oxygen.

I came across a youtube video showing what we took for a mountain actually being the STUMP of a TREE which may have been one or more miles high. This means oxygen levels and atmospheric height thereof must have been many many miles higher than it presently is. This would have enabled giant animals, insects and crops to exist, such as the shapes of these I believe I see in Google Earth covering miles, not feet. This video pointed out that our Earth appears to have been Strip Mined and Deforested. As oxygen disappeared, animal life and vegetable life grew smaller. It is interesting to hear talk of AGAIN making mankind much smaller. Lack of oxygen and food already does that but slowly.

Getting rid of Oil means also replacing its byproducts which are not biodegradable. We inevitably will have to use Tesla's Death Ray to demateriallise the indestructible non-degradable things we manufacture.

[Bill Ryan]

The other idea is that if the North Magnetic Pole is truly moving towards Siberia, then the Cold is also moving North with it. In addition, relative to the NMP, all the land masses of the West will be moving towards the Heat of the Equator. Also the Ocean Bulge of water at the Equator will move North with the NMP. Places like Miami will suddenly experience a "Rise in Water Levels." Antarctica will move North toward Australia. The Countries of the Eastern hemisphere will experience Cooling as they are actually being approached by the NMP.

If/when the Magnetic Poles move, no land masses move with them.


I came across a youtube video showing what we took for a mountain actually being the STUMP of a TREE which may have been one or more miles high.

There are YouTube videos, made by people who understand so little science that it's genuinely hard to explain or understand, that try to claim just about anything one might conceivably imagine. (Not a joke! :) )

:focus:

[KiwiElf]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/215926/20171120/there-will-be-more-major-earthquakes-in-2018-scientists-say-lets-be-prepared.htm

More Major Earthquakes In 2018: Why?

New research presented by the University of Colorado's Roger Bilham and the University of Montana's Rebecca Bendick at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America claimed that there will be an increase in the number of major earthquakes starting 2018.

The surge in devastating earthquakes, according to the scientists, is connected to changes in the speed at which the Earth rotates. The team behind the study believes that variations on the world's rotation speed could result in the release of massive amounts of underground energy that will trigger the earthquakes.

"The changes to the Earth's rotation are miniscule, as the effects include changing the lengths of days by just one millisecond. However, that will be enough to trigger more earthquakes, according to the study. There is no definite explanation on their connection, but the scientists believe that it has something to do with the behavior of the Earth's core."

I've seen quite a few mainstream news articles talking about increasing earthquakes related to the slowing of the Earths rotation.

Interesting times we live in.

I remember that scientists were claiming the impact of the Japanese Quake/Tsunami had minutely shifted Earth's orbit after the fact - (...if only I could remember where I read it?...):blushing:

[bluestflame]

https://www.space.com/g00/11115-japan-earthquake-shortened-earth-days.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS5hdS8%3D

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=716

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110316-japan-earthquake-shortened-days-earth-axis-spin-nasa-science/

[Bill Ryan]

I remember that scientists were claiming the impact of the Japanese Quake/Tsunami had minutely shifted Earth's orbit after the fact - (...if only I could remember where I read it?...):blushing:

Here's one report:


https://nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html

Extract:




The calculations also show the Japan quake should have shifted the position of Earth's figure axis (the axis about which Earth's mass is balanced) by about 17 centimeters (6.5 inches), towards 133 degrees east longitude. Earth's figure axis should not be confused with its north-south axis; they are offset by about 10 meters (about 33 feet). This shift in Earth's figure axis will cause Earth to wobble a bit differently as it rotates, but it will not cause a shift of Earth's axis in space—only external forces such as the gravitational attraction of the sun, moon and planets can do that.

[Hervé]

[...]
Extract:



The calculations also show the Japan quake should have shifted the position of Earth's figure axis (the axis about which Earth's mass is balanced) by about 17 centimeters (6.5 inches), towards 133 degrees east longitude. Earth's figure axis should not be confused with its north-south axis; they are offset by about 10 meters (about 33 feet). This shift in Earth's figure axis will cause Earth to wobble a bit differently as it rotates, but it will not cause a shift of Earth's axis in space—only external forces such as the gravitational attraction of the sun, moon and planets can do that.

Notice that "should have" I emphasized... it's all computations... not from observed phenomenon, especially in the Japan tsunami case since the earthquake's magnitude kept being inflated with no corroborating evidence from Japan's seismograms...

Similar story and wording from the big 8.8 Chilean earthquake: Did the Chile earthquake change Earth's day? | EarthSky (http://www.yandex.com/clck/jsredir?bu=uniq151127866221383380&from=www.yandex.com%3Bsearch%2F%3Bweb%3B%3B&text=&etext=1612.6Snre4LYXpUf7wDPl8B-52JpviBPazM_p0jaYBjgq3PRGxDWoBZv0B7KAIU4gIvFPi8_gxmJvto4m1o-wtk_Tw.24d35e1f358ede3443ce6bc14f7b7649d23a05c9&uuid=&state=PEtFfuTeVD5kpHnK9lio9ThluiZ1G4ojQRnDqP1wRIkdnIy1TZuw1A,,&&cst=AiuY0DBWFJ5Hyx_fyvalFHmeF5yUXADJDuau-F11TiBSkoa50CEPULqId4zgJ5oqqHlhtd3apXeQ5SRFa4yxk7p2bvRPgybJ_2eBWkws5OXrpmTwipvzkavQcCsKctn6Y21HpnLvJ-Y3RbhGSjQRUJ6L_4FYhDRICtLbrrbsm_XnwhAVElOZcqq11YEr6vP5HUuyJ0rn5LHYdUlKvzKRG18whkdSwftajgjYAwz8YqSvX7 Sn_PVfMODVJCxxZ9iEdUt8De_WYgo4wj66VlIeVxq-KWATnB1tVrzglEA--hthi3y3ZOnHhQ,,&data=UlNrNmk5WktYejR0eWJFYk1LdmtxbUg0T3dMZXRpR0k2Q1M1aUNYeEk3OE5RT2ZKNFNfVkxlbUlONkJVbnNZZGpDaEVld3d INVQ1U2FVTktGc3RmZXliYngxdlZtaUJEc3dVYlNRV1ZMM3JHUHVFaGJneWk1RlEwT2QwTm83TTQ0aTFXcHJWeTllQVMtNmYyazl 6dFdfbmwxVXI4RUVaMDJkV0NjZ2szeEkzWnV2cm1UM2NJR2csLA,,&sign=9c620c5b54407c2f6d506331507cb05c&keyno=0&b64e=2&ref=orjY4mGPRjlSKyJlbRuxUnU39LXnsQVOU9hOXlFVqHKw6B3keAmB2GpuzdUJc9t83jH_jazqWC_dWfUqBZ11Vix76C1hHlCy WIFtESDDAHhTLgKhXE08yw,,&l10n=en&cts=1511279298166&mc=5.42958487302357)

[...]
Recent news reports have focused on Earth's length of day, noting that the Chilean earthquake might have shortened days by as much as 1.26 microseconds out of 24 hours. That's true. But it's also negligible compared to the normal effect of wind and tides, which can lengthen or shorten days a thousand times more than earthquakes can.
[...]Moreover, in both of these Japan and Chile cases, there is an inferred increase in earth's spinning speed (day length decrease) whereas the studies posted are reporting a spin speed DECREASE (day length increase)...

Either case imply a re-balancing of earth global stress field and its re-adjustment with earth becoming "flatter" with a minute equatorial sea level rise in one case or becoming "rounder" with an equatorial sea level drop in the other case.

PS: Reminiscing sour memories: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30789-Astronomers-Say-Earth-Changed-Position-to-its-Axis&p=312727&viewfull=1#post312727