ForumGarden

Analysis of data from sites indicates that the ocean volume may have increased to add 2.5 to 3.5 m to global average sea level over the past 6,000 years. Now Civilizations have been building ships since around the year 2500BC if you take a look at the chart below Uwill see that ocean levels have increased lots over the last hundred years now when we cross that with the amount of ships being built it shows an increase in ship production so I have now come to the conclusion that the reason the ocean levels are rising is that we are putting many ships on the ocean and every ship displaces water for example an aircraft carrier displaces approximately 86,000 tons times that by 13 ships (USN) = 1,118,000tons and that’s just USN carriers not the support ships for them or the transport ships or the oil tankers or the cruise ships so I don't see why we are blaming it on some complex theory of global warming and melting ice caps when if you think about it we have just displaced so much water from are ship displacement so why are we fretting about it.

Attached files

Isn't that just a drop in the Ocean? :-3

weight is the wrong measure for an issue of volume.



the volume of the oceans is so much larger than the volume of the displacement of human additions to it is insignificant.

But they're moving, anastrophe. These ships, they're continually pushing up huge bow waves. It's not the volume displaced by the ship itself - that's minimal, as you say. But the bow wave extends hundreds of miles and though it's only large enough to be seen within two or three miles of the ship, the total increase in wave height added up over the hundreds of miles accounts for a vast amount of water compared to the bulk of the ship itself. Add all of the world's fleets and you get your three meters average increase.

That's why it's got so much worse over the last hundred years - ships suddenly got a lot faster.

We don't need to dismantle the ships to reduce sea height to it's natural level. All we need do is speed them up even faster and put them on hydrofoil vanes so that there's no bow wave. I suggest that it be tried on the Queen Mary 2 which can be fitted with a thirty meter foil at its mid-section and a rocket-assist. That would easily prove the principle. The cost could be offset by selling more tickets to make the ship heavier and stop it from taking off.

MOTime wrote: I don't see why we are blaming it on some complex theory of global warming and melting ice caps .


Didn't a huge ice shelf just break off? That's not a coincidence. Global warming is so bad now that it's pretty much apparent to the average person. Look at the number and strength of hurricanes projected for this Summer.

Look at graphs of average temperature of the Earth, look at the indices of air pollutants.

Global warming isn't a complex theory, it's just common sense and observation.

Jives wrote: Didn't a huge ice shelf just break off? That's not a coincidence. Global warming is so bad now that it's pretty much apparent to the average person. Look at the number and strength of hurricanes projected for this Summer.

Look at graphs of average temperature of the Earth, look at the indices of air pollutants.

Global warming isn't a complex theory, it's just common sense and observation.


Yes. Global warming is apparent to the average person but what I'm saying is that there is a positive correlation between ship production and the rise in ocean levels so I am basing my theories on that correlation but I do realize that global warming is real and very apparent

MOTime wrote: Yes. Global warming is apparent to the average person but what I'm saying is that there is a positive correlation between ship production and the rise in ocean levels so I am basing my theories on that correlation but I do realize that global warming is real and very apparent


post hoc ergo propter hoc.

anastrophe wrote: post hoc ergo propter hoc.


but whimsical all the same

anastrophe wrote: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Maybe in English, for those of us with a much more limited vocabulary compared to yours? Thanks, Paul. :yh_bigsmi

BabyRider wrote: Maybe in English, for those of us with a much more limited vocabulary compared to yours? Thanks, Paul. :yh_bigsmi


in english, it's roughly 'after this, therefore because of this'. it's pointing out that just because something came after something else, it doesn't mean the that the thing that came after caused the other.



i just looked it up myself to confirm, and there's actually a better construct for this particular instance - cum hoc ergo propter hoc - 'with this, therefore because of this'. that's a more accurate representation of the fallacy that correlation implies causation.

BabyRider wrote: Maybe in English, for those of us with a much more limited vocabulary compared to yours? Thanks, Paul. :yh_bigsmi


Roughly, because this happened first, it must have caused that

after this, therefore because this

Scrat wrote: You have got to be kidding me. In WWII there was 3 times the tonnage of ships on the worlds oceans than there is today. Granted they were not supertankers but don't forget, they were mass produced in many different places. Why weren't the oceans flooding then?


Beacuse they were we were just to busy to notice cause we was fight in a war

Ain't sophistry a wonderful thing.

It's got nothing to do with ships there are two other obvious causes being overlooked.

First of all there are billions of people all over the world much much more than there used to be. We all have top use the bathroom and it all goes somewhere. Not only is all that extra liquid adding to the amount of water in the ocean it's warm and that is why the temperature of the sea is rising. Convection currents carry the hot water around the world but the antarctic is affected as it falls to the bottom of the planet due to gravity.

Then there's macdonald's. Having deforested the planet to grow more cows for their beefburgers all these extra cattlke generate so much methane it's causing more wind than there usd to be so you get more hurricanes.

Houses and cars and all that other stuff we have now just think of all that extra weight we've added. If you look at the US and the geological fault that runs between californis and the rest of the states (I can't remember the name-I know san andreas fault, is that it) What's really happening is that the weight of all the people and their suv's in California is causing california to break off and the fault line is opening as a consequence so you will be getting more earthquakes soon.

gmc wrote: First of all there are billions of people all over the world much much more than there used to be. We all have top use the bathroom and it all goes somewhere. Not only is all that extra liquid adding to the amount of water in the ocean it's warm and that is why the temperature of the sea is rising. Convection currents carry the hot water around the world but the antarctic is affected as it falls to the bottom of the planet due to gravity.Of COURSE! That's why the Antarctic photography I've seen recently shows the edge of the ice-shelf with a yellow tinge!

gmc wrote:

First of all there are billions of people all over the world much much more than there used to be. We all have top use the bathroom and it all goes somewhere.




One of the many scintific law of mater stats that it cannot be created or destroyed so therfore we can not incress the ocean levels just by using the bathroom as we have already removed the water from the land drank it then we just put it back and continued on are way.