Fishers find CR10 Squid!

[Pbartender]

As I understand it, it's not the melting of floating ice that's supposed to increase sea levels; it's a/ the melting of ice that's on land, meaning that water that wasn't in the ocean in any form ends up in the ocean, and b/ the heating of water that's already in liquid form. Water is densest at about 4 degrees C, right? So if something causes a whole lot of 4 degree water to become 5 degree water, it will take up more space.

If someone says "If the Arctic pack ice melts, seas will rise and we'll all drown!", their physics is out.

But if they say "If the Arctic pack ice melts, it won't be long before the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt too, and then seas will rise and we'll all drown!", they're at least basing their fears on something that makes some sense.

-Hyp.

Even that aside, there isn't nearly as much water froaen into the polar ice caps and glaciers as most people think. From How Stuff Works:

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

In other words... Anybody living in coastal cities will have to relocate, but anyone in a town above 200 ft. of elevation would be "safe".

Sorry, the whole scenario in the movie "Waterworld" is a load of .

As for thermal exansion of water:

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the International Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount -- it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

It'd make a difference, but not a very big one, geologically speaking.

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

As I understand it, it's not the melting of floating ice that's supposed to increase sea levels; it's a/ the melting of ice that's on land, meaning that water that wasn't in the ocean in any form ends up in the ocean, and b/ the heating of water that's already in liquid form. Water is densest at about 4 degrees C, right? So if something causes a whole lot of 4 degree water to become 5 degree water, it will take up more space.

If someone says "If the Arctic pack ice melts, seas will rise and we'll all drown!", their physics is out.

But if they say "If the Arctic pack ice melts, it won't be long before the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt too, and then seas will rise and we'll all drown!", they're at least basing their fears on something that makes some sense.

-Hyp.

Yup: expanding water and less ice that's currently on land. It is true that water is denser than ice, but that doesn't mean that sea level hasn't (or won't continue) to rise.

I won't talk about Global Warming, since in the US at least, that has become a political issue (I understand that elsewhere the scientific consensus is not seen as poltiical.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

 

[Andor]

It'd make a difference, but not a very big one, geologically speaking.

Do you have the faintest idea how many people live less than 220' above sea level? I'll give you a hint. Space mountain at disney world is the second tallest peak in florida at 210' ASL. Try looking up Bangladesh on a map some time too. Or London. It doesn't need to be 'Water world' to be a greater disater than humanity has faced since the last time yellowstone cut loose.

 

[Mark CMG]

But can it fend off the Hunting Monkeys? -

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=189165

 

[Drowbane]

Colossal Half-Fiend Mind Flayer = Cthulhu?

You misspelled "Kaiju".

 

[Nyeshet]

I was surprised in the report that they diffentiated between the "colossal" squid just found and the "giant" squid that everyone's been looking for years now.

All we need now is the gargantuan squid!

They have had evidence and even body parts of Giant Squids for a decade or two. The Colossal squid, however, has only been in evidence from sucker marks on sperm whales and beaks and tentacle parts found in the stomachs of said whales. This is not even the first actual capture of one - just the largest one captured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2910849.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4756514.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16322895/
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070222_ap_colossal_squid.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17275072/

Colossal squid, known by the scientific name Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, are estimated to grow up to 46 feet long and have long been one of the most mysterious creatures of the deep ocean.

[snip]

Colossal squid are found in Antarctic waters and are not related to giant squid found round the coast of New Zealand. Giant squid grow up to 39 feet long, but are not as heavy as colossal squid.

Oh, and another article on the same story pointed out that the 39 ft length does not include the tentacles, but the tentacles are (unusually?) short on colossal squids anyway, so it should not have extra reach beyond what is typical for its size.

Personally, I was more interested in the 'using flashing bioluminescence lights to stun prey before capturing it' squid video taped a week or so ago, myself . . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6357005.stm

 

[Banshee16]

Actually, squid scientists have eaten giant squid calamari. Unfortunately, it tastes like ammonia.

Demiurge out.

Maybe that's not a bad thing....if these things are rare, but tasted good enough to become a commodity, humans would probably hunt them into extinction..

Banshee

 

[hamishspence]

Tentacles

Most squid have 8 short arms and 2 long tentacles. The Colossal squid looks to have proportionally shorter arms than the giant (the deep sea camera pic showed one of the few good pics of a giant in natural habitat) but I can't tell how long the long tentacles are.
The deep sea camera pics also showed giant squids are faster and more aggressive than originally thought. And Colossal is more aggressive than that: "Giant squid astern, sir!"

Let maxed out Gargantuan Giant squid from D&D represent colossal squid in play.

The description of the Colossal suggests it has the size and some of the nasty streak of fictional Giant Squids. Plus vicious claws, bulk, and speed.