EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:32 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerati ... celeration
[color=#008000]v=u+at
s=ut +1/2at*2


s= displacement = ?
u= initial velocity = 3mm/yr = .3cm/yr
v= final velocity
a= uniform acceleration = 1mm/decade*2 = .1mm/yr*2 = .01cm/yr*2
t= time = 100yr

s=ut +1/2at*2
s = .3cm/yr(100yr) + .5(.01cm/yr*2)(100yr*2) = 30 cm + 50cm = 80 cm = 31 inches

right now we have a velocity of 3mm/yr which is 3cm/decade. A little over an inch per decade.
what would be the future velocity at 1mm/decade accelertion at the end of 100 years


v=u+at
v = 3mm/yr + .1mm/yr(100 yr) = 13mm/yr that doesn't look like much

per decade = 13mm x 10 years = 130mm/decade = 13cm/decade = 5.1 inches/decade

I'm only 7 inches higher than Tim's number and I'm getting 5 inches/decade sea level rise.

I believe this to be a conservative number based on the world's inability to compromise

or agree on a common goal of action. This is based on linear acceleration. If we have increasing acceleration, 5inches per decade will be a lower possiblity and sea level rise will be a higher velocity by 2112.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:46 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
^ Typical psudo-maths.

You have used the equation for constant acceleration.

The sea level has been rising at a rate of 3mm/year (although how you measure sea level to that sort of accuracy I don't quite understand) but currently the rate of change of this number (it's acceleration) is negative.

To predict sea level changes you must have a more detailed model. This must include the thermal expansion of the water (not much 6-8 inches max by 2100) and the amount of ice expected to melt. The worst predictions of sea level rise by 2100 are about knee high (59cm ~ 22 inches).

Applieing the wrong physics equation just makes you look stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:42 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
^ Typical psudo-maths.

You have used the equation for constant acceleration.

The sea level has been rising at a rate of 3mm/year (although how you measure sea level to that sort of accuracy I don't quite understand) but currently the rate of change of this number (it's acceleration) is negative.

To predict sea level changes you must have a more detailed model. This must include the thermal expansion of the water (not much 6-8 inches max by 2100) and the amount of ice expected to melt. The worst predictions of sea level rise by 2100 are about knee high (59cm ~ 22 inches).

Applieing the wrong physics equation just makes you look stupid.


No, that seems to be real math. What you have provided is pseudo-math because you have not provided any math to support your claims.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:56 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
No, that seems to be real math. What you have provided is pseudo-math because you have not provided any math to support your claims.


Only to those who have been home schooled.

The equation you would want is y=mx+c. This is the equation of a straight line. Onto this you would presumably add an exponential. You should understnd that you are at this point just talking drivel but why stop when you can create a scary graph?

Be careful not to use the real data as the lastest figures show that at a mimium the rate of temperature increaseis negative thus the exponential will be negitive and show world cooling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:53 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
No, that seems to be real math. What you have provided is pseudo-math because you have not provided any math to support your claims.


Only to those who have been home schooled.


No, it is real math to everyone up to and including those with a PhD.

Quote:
The equation you would want is y=mx+c.


Why is that not pseudo-math if the similar equation is? Could it be you have no idea of which you speak or have used completely incorrect nomencalture?

Quote:
This is the equation of a straight line. Onto this you would presumably add an exponential. You should understnd that you are at this point just talking drivel but why stop when you can create a scary graph?


Drivel as in pseudo-math or real math that you believe is incorrectly applied? It is hard to tell with these claims.

Quote:
Be careful not to use the real data as the lastest figures show that at a mimium the rate of temperature increaseis negative thus the exponential will be negitive and show world cooling.


I assume you mean do not use data that is from a time period which is too short.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:24 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
OK, using your ideas why not look at it this way:-

Rather than use the small coastline of Holland I will use a much bigger coastline.

Antarctica has a coastline of 4,989 km.

Zero money is spent protecting it from coastal erosion and flooding.

Despite it being of considerable interest in terms of GW the amount that it's budget for coastal defence will increase by 2100 if the worst case scenario happens will be zero.

Thus the whole world's budget will not change and indeed be zero.

It's drivel, just like you using Holland and arguing that the entire world's coast lines are going to cost as much as Holland's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20472
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
OK, using your ideas why not look at it this way:-

Rather than use the small coastline of Holland I will use a much bigger coastline.

Antarctica has a coastline of 4,989 km.

Zero money is spent protecting it from coastal erosion and flooding.

Despite it being of considerable interest in terms of GW the amount that it's budget for coastal defence will increase by 2100 if the worst case scenario happens will be zero.

Thus the whole world's budget will not change and indeed be zero.

It's drivel, just like you using Holland and arguing that the entire world's coast lines are going to cost as much as Holland's.


No, I am using the average data from Holland to show what the defenses would cost using that average cost and the total coastline. Even a fraction of that cost per protected coastline length would be devastaing as the first calculation using the wrong coastline data showed.

So using this no budget approach we would not see any budget for sea defences needed because the land is not going to be protected. Thus we just have to calculate the loss of the property due to the 2 foot increase you propose, right? That loss of coastline might be even more expensive than the previous calcualtions. That is what happens when you use faulty logic.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Tim the Plumber wrote:
OK, using your ideas why not look at it this way:-

Rather than use the small coastline of Holland I will use a much bigger coastline.

Antarctica has a coastline of 4,989 km.

Zero money is spent protecting it from coastal erosion and flooding.

Despite it being of considerable interest in terms of GW the amount that it's budget for coastal defence will increase by 2100 if the worst case scenario happens will be zero.

Thus the whole world's budget will not change and indeed be zero.

It's drivel, just like you using Holland and arguing that the entire world's coast lines are going to cost as much as Holland's.



Interesting about your figure of 2 ft. sea level rise. That is acceleration also. 3mm/year is only 30cm after 100 years which is less than 12 inches. Acceleration of sea level rise is necessary to reach 24 inches in a hundred years. What is unknown is how much will sea level accelerate in the future? Impulse 1a did 5m in about 100 years. I don't think it will accelerate that much.[


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group