czok
 
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2014 09:04 pm
are we gaining or losing land mass to erosion and the seas?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 13 • Views: 2,290 • Replies: 32
No top replies

 
InkRune
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 12:36 am
@czok,
I believe currently we are losing, more than gaining.
czok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 02:09 am
@InkRune,
So this might mean if no deviation from the current degradation, that eventually we'd have total oceanic coverage. Wonder when that would be, or if anyone can quantify it in cubic yards per day.

Now, among other entropic events, Andromeda is going to collide with our galaxy, we have an idea when that is, yet I've read nothing about a geo-submersion. I suppose we'd have the easiest time with this problem by building floating or dredged continents.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 03:37 am
Sea levels rise and fall based on average annual temperatures. Currently, the average annual temperature is rising. That would mean that sea levels will rise. However, the salinity of the oceans seems to be a factor in climate change, and it is not well understood yet. It is idiotic, however, to assume that there would be any run-away effect--that sea levels would rise and rise without any effect on climate which would mitigate the event.

The putative collision of galaxies has nothing to do with this.
knaivete
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 04:35 am
@czok,
Quote:
Andromeda is going to collide with our galaxy, we have an idea when that is, yet I've read nothing about a geo-submersion. I suppose we'd have the easiest time with this problem by building floating or dredged continents.


Floating continents, wouldn't that be handy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E280%93Milky_Way_collision%

The Andromeda–Milky Way collision is a galactic collision predicted to occur in about 4 billion years ... although the stars involved are sufficiently far apart that it is improbable that any of them will individually collide.



mountains crumble to the sea?

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 04:44 am
By the time such a collision were to occur, the sun will very likely be in its red giant phase, and there would be no atmosphere nor hydrosphere left on this planet.
0 Replies
 
czok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2014 11:27 am
@Setanta,
Still you have not addressed my question. Just say you don't know. Nothing wrong with that.

This isn't at all about global warming metrics related to sea levels or any of its expanding derivatives. It is about diminishing earth levels due to exiting ancient forces that are not anthropogenic.

It is a long ranged question, like entropy and heat death, so that is why I inserted the Andromeda collision example. In other words I don't care how long it takes, just that is this process taking land?

It is about erosion and the rate of land creation VS land effacing due to all the various erosions..... to include any data on the progress in cubic yards per day which might succumb to permanent erosion. There will be a net loss ratio after taking into consideration that new land being moved above sea level.

However, I realize the long range consequences of at least 7 events that might negate the results of my question. Not the angle I was trying to steer the astute minds herein to ponder.

I realize how long the erosion forces might take given uplift and volcanic action keeping land above the sea. But guess what? I have no quantitative data, no access to any studies. This is where my question is directed.

I understand the stars may not conflict as we are shredded by Andromeda. I understand we could experience a failed magnetic reversal, possibly losing our protective magnetic shroud, our atmosphere being scrubbed off leaving us parched like Mars. We could be hit by a gamma ray burst or our sun's expansion beyond our orbit. An asteroid strike, a magnetar, a supervolcanic eruption like Yellowstone, et al, but these are only relevant as contenders in time to the rather simple question I had.

Oh, and it isn't about anthropogenic global climate change. Although it is certain that a new snowball earth, perhaps after a Yellowstone/asteroid event, might stop an erosion process of earth material onto the seafloor due to it being frozen up to a mile thick. A RETURN to a warm humid earth for whatever reason would likely accelerate the process.
czok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2014 11:58 am
If this site may not have the specific knowledge for my questions, anyone know of a source where they might?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2014 01:24 pm
@czok,
Oh i answered your question, but you apparently didn't understand the answer. The mass of the earth is unchanged by fluctuations in climate, which are responsible for sea levels. Sea levels have changed many times in the last few thousand years. This is not a continuum. We are not "losing" anything, and sea level rise--less land exposed--as well as the fall of sea level--more land exposed--change constantly over time.

It is impossible to tell you how long the "process" will take, as there is no such process in operation. When the sun beings to "die," and it expands. there will be no more atmosphere nor hydrosphere, but that is not what you are talking about.

You can't blame me is your question was vague, and you can't blame me if you failed to understand the answer.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2014 01:27 pm
Really, your questions demonstrate that you know nothing about land formation, erosion, nor the life of the solar system. Your questions are naïve and simplistic. The Pacific plate is subducting, but the sea floor in many parts of the Atlantic are rising It's not at all the simple equation you seem to think.
czok
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2014 05:21 pm
@Setanta,
Sorry, you have not portrayed that you comprehend the process of which I'm referring. Fixating upon sea levels, global warming and other fashionable activism is not primary. That you bluster your arrogance by smearing my knowledge level hurls you into a pubescent class, which may be fitting to a savant who has zero social skills. But usually, a savant will honestly state they do not know something without being compelled to hurl insults.

If you did know, then my status, what I know or do not know, would not be so important to you. So, my intellectual capacity is relevant. Either you know empirically that there are no such forces at work, or you do not. Whether you know anything in competition to me is not bearing upon what I do not claim to know anyway. But you are too limbic and irrational to move beyond that.

You may cite research that confirms your position. If you had none already in mind, then in my opinion, you are a posturing liar.

So, if you are equipped with a rational response, then I invite you to give quantitative data. I am not concerned about sea levels, they are ancillary to the process. To belabor your ethos of interaction, if you cannot cease being contentious it would be good to have your parent of guardian revisit the merit of all the inert stars they put on your refrigerator.

If you read the question, I include awareness the volcanic formation and uplift which helps land stay above the sea level. Even taking the meteorite chunks and dust.

Let me make certain I get your position right: You are confidently stating that the 5 erosion processes are effacing land at an immeasurable differential rate which tectonics and volcanism combined are repositioning it? I really suspect that you don't actually know what you are talking about. And as cover, would prefer to smear my question to portray yourself as someone who knows more than they actually do, pretentious is a fitting word.

So your position is that there is no land loss/repositioning to erosion?

This is not "loss" according to a quantum matter definition, but land repositioning upon the planet is such a way as it no longer appears above the surface of the water. Again, this cannot be due to water rising as if the water is causative, but barring replenishment from a comet, it only rises by displacement.

You could look at this as if there was water rising, but that is looking at a symptom rather than the process. Water is not compressible so it rises as a result of other forces. In the case of my query, it is like tub water rising when you get into the tub, not because of bad behavior in the bathroom. That is another perhaps exo-philosophical discussion.
0 Replies
 
czok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2014 01:25 pm
@Setanta,
You say "the sea floor is rising"? Hmmmm OK, do you realize you have played yourself into a reasonable inadvertent alignment with my inquiry? Do you not see this?

Would the sea floor be rising due to magma pressure, plate uplift or sedimentary deposits? I suppose you will assert lunar gravity tugging from your astute cosmic knowledge? LOL

Keep in mind, of you have that capacity, the sea floor cannot rise without displacing the water over it, causing that water to rise commensurate with the new displacement of sea floor. You get that?

I see your posts as frivolous semi-comatose rattle. The same shovel you used to dig yourself into this bitter smear-hole can be used to carve steps to humbly extricate yourself from your hole. You have the substance to do that?

Define your proclamations with a distinction between these candidates for sea floor swelling, or another, if you have the knowledge. Again, what kind of maturity needs to smear rather than discuss? Do you see yourself as some high potentate of geology?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2014 03:56 pm
@czok,
Your supposition is as idiotic as your thesis, and it is insulting. You seem to think that the only active, significant agent is erosion. You ignore tectonic forces and volcanic forces. The sea floor rises because of tectonic action, which has caused the continuing rise of the Rocky Mountains and the Himalayas--both the products of tectonic activity, the former relatively ancient, and the latter very, very recent in terms of geological time. In my lifetime, the island of Hawaii has grown in what you are pleased to call "land mass" due to the eruptions of Mauna Loa, the largest volcano on the planet. In fact, the cone of that volcano and the mass of the island of Hawaii are co-terminal. In my lifetime, volcanic eruptions have increased the "land mass" of Iceland, including intrusions into the Atlantic Ocean. Eruptions all along the Ring of Fire have increased "land mass" on the periphery of the Pacific ocean. My lifetime is a tiny fraction of an eye blink in terms of geological time--the long term effect of volcanic activity over the ages has been to add "land mass" above sea level.

You're been sneering at me routinely in this thread, and then making arrognt remarks about "smears." Here's one for you: your apparent assumption of a steady state continuum of activity with regard to the mass of land above sea level in which only erosion is an active, significant factor is naïve and jejune. You either dismiss or have never considered the significance fo tectonic and volcanic activity.

I have not cast myself as a "high potentate of geology." Neither am i so foolish as to ignore the significance of volcanic activity or the orogeny of mountain ranges. If you con't wish to be "smeared," but simply to discuss, then don't sneer at and smear me and dismiss what you have seemingly failed to consider at all.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2014 04:15 pm
As long as earth is geologically active, there's no way to tell what future geological events will be, nor the shape and size of continents. Yes there is erosion but also orogenesis... There's no reason to assume that continents will disappear.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2014 04:38 pm
@knaivete,
knaivete wrote:

The Andromeda–Milky Way collision is a galactic collision predicted to occur in about 4 billion years ... although the stars involved are sufficiently far apart that it is improbable that any of them will individually collide.


Improbable ... but POSSIBLE. Oh holy crap we're gonna die!
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2014 04:49 pm
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:
Improbable ... but POSSIBLE. Oh holy crap we're gonna die!


Yes, and sooner more likely than later.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2014 05:00 pm
@knaivete,
Thank God! I first read that as 4 million years. Glad to realize I had misread it on the first go round.
0 Replies
 
czok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2014 05:12 pm
@Setanta,
Your own disposition is unknown to you.

The first snide comment was from you, not me, now that I had a bit of time to look back on your intramural posts. You are incoherent and what you say is wrong....On your first post you say, " It is idiotic". You imagine insults to justify some pathologica angst. Are you female? LOL Who starts a discussion & posts a chest-beating position with compulsory degradation? Someone like you must have had serious unresolved rejections. The relationship between erosion, volcanic and astral deposits are not eco-neutral nor mass neutral. Earth is losing weight cosmically, but the redistribution of land & water is another matter, similar to the vying distribution of lucidity and spasmodic incoherency, we wonder which shall eventually overcome you? Same kind of question LOL

Your pension to do this has typical shame gaps I find in right-brain halve or other limbicism & beta-chemical dependant thinking, which is a strung out oxymoron. I mean, you really can't call it "thought" by any act of free will.

Here's what you missed, and must refuse to acknowledge to sustain your imagined position; It was because I had ALREADY taken into consideration erosion and tectonic forces et al and that it is highly unlikely they have identical rates of effect. This was just too complicated for you. You cannot assemble what you read and your emotions govern your unfortunate predispositions. There may be therapy for this condition, not my specialty. Smile
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2014 07:16 pm
Saying that an idea is idiotic is not being snide--it is being forthright, in fact. Your thesis does not take into account climactic effects, tectonics or volcanic effects. That you are offended that i don't take your thesis seriously is not evidence of a personal attack. Your thesis is not well thought out, and it is shallow and superficial. Saying as much is not evidence of incoherence. It seems to me that you have a chip on your shoulder. I suspect that you've posted this elsewhere, and have been similarly dismissed. Boo-hoo.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Dec, 2014 07:33 pm
Pouring libation . . .
Munching my favorite chips n dip . .
Carry on . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » land mass
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 09:19:28