|
Post by kat on Feb 24, 2014 20:32:37 GMT -5
don't forget the earth plates movement, they rises and shrink as well... and we know like nothing about the ground of the see, under-surface volcano and pre-islands... there is always more then just one cause to such complex environment changes like the see level. Your ship theory is just one piece in this big puzzle and quite interesting as well
|
|
|
Post by silencer on Feb 24, 2014 20:38:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure of the answers to your questions, but i think once it reaches the ocean it would be washed out to sea and dispersed...but none the less it would have an accumulative effect.
I just remember seeing it mentioned on a documentary and thinking to myself wow no wonder the sea levels rise, then i thought about all the coastal erosion as well that is happening daily which too must displace water to increase the levels....Although i'm not sure how many billions of tons of material it would take to make the sea levels rise by even one millimetre.
|
|
|
Post by anonymoushacker on Feb 24, 2014 21:09:07 GMT -5
no i said that 0.0000001 kilometres squared equals 1 metre that is right is it not. or are you saying that i should have only multiplied it by 0.0001 because 1 metre is 1 thousandth of a kilometre.
|
|
|
Post by illuminati on Feb 24, 2014 21:13:53 GMT -5
To calculate the neccessary displacement in km3 you have to multiply the km2 with the height. As it's km*km*km and you already have the square km of the ocean it's just the km left and not another km2 So you have to multiply with 1/1000=0.001
But it's a nice idea to calculate what all the ships will add to the height of the oceans. Even if it's much less it may be measureable.
|
|
|
Post by mranderson on Feb 24, 2014 21:18:03 GMT -5
That is very interesting. I did think of this awhile back but never put any thought into it. But your math seems to be correct. As for the sediment thing it doesn't make a difference because that sediment is already in the water so there is negligible displacement. All the stats for how much cubic displacement there is, is out there all we need is do the research and the math. I would very much like to know the results.
|
|
|
Post by BlackHawk on Feb 24, 2014 21:30:31 GMT -5
Brilliant :-)
The world needs more people with such creativity and such a brilliant sense of humor and the world would be a better place :-)
|
|
|
Post by area51 on Feb 25, 2014 0:55:05 GMT -5
I have a headache from looking at the math. You've got some real problems here. For example, you say, "0.0000001 km2= 1 metre" Whoa!!! Way too many zeroes there! Like 4 too many. A meter is 1/1000th of a km. So it's .001. And then you inexplicable sidestep from metric to imperial by using tonnes instead of kilograms With ships, displacement in kg is vastly different than tonnage, which refers to volume or capacity. A cubic meter of saltwater at some salinity and temperature weighs 1025 kg. So already we have an understatement by a factor of ten thousand or so.
And you say the "average cruise ship weighs 100,000 tons. Only the absolute largest ships in the world, the Oasis class ships, approach that figure. See, If Royal Caribbean builds it, 6,400 could come, Boston Globe (February 7, 2006). The Titanic was about half that amount. So figure an average displacement of 60,000 tons. So now you don't need 250 cruise ships as you said. You need about 6 million cruise ships.
And even at that, it's not that simple. As the water rises, the surface area of the ocean gets larger. Of course the depth of this new surface area is not more than 1 meter, but it is still a substantial increase in volume, given the long shorelines of all the world's oceans.
|
|
|
Post by anonymoushacker on Feb 25, 2014 1:08:41 GMT -5
ha ha ha its three less zeros and thats already been covered, nice try but when your gunna attack someone make sure you have the math right yourself. I never claimed to be a mathematician, you obiviously read no more of the thread tho' did you?
|
|
|
Post by anonymoushacker on Feb 25, 2014 1:09:23 GMT -5
The largest cruise ships gross tonnage is around 225 000 tonnes alot more than the littlew old titanic
|
|
|
Post by augustusmasonicus on Feb 25, 2014 1:13:59 GMT -5
I don't think so. Here's why:
Build a ship- materials for the ship come from land thus reducing the mass of the land causing the land to rise. Land rises due to loss of mass therefore the shoreline recedes. Put mass back into the water in the form of a boat and the water level rises due to the displacement of the mass of the boat therefore raising the water level back to where it was to begin with.
|
|