Posted on 02/23/2002 2:33:42 PM PST by blam
I have done some rough calculations and simulations for questions concerning evaporation of the Gulf of Mexico and sea level.
Surface area of Gulf of Mexico: 15 million square km
Estimated depth evaporation rate: 1 meter/yr
Estimated volume evaporation rate for Gulf of Mexico: 1.7 trillion liters/hr
Normal volume flow of Mississippi R.: 23 billion liters/hr
An est. volume flow of Amazon R: 300 billion liters/hr
I have included flows of large rivers for comparison with the evaporation rate. So, for example, the flow of about 100 Mississippi Rivers are needed to compensate evaporation in the Gulf of Mexico. Only about 5 or 6 Amazon Rivers would be needed. It is stated that the Amazon flow represents about 20% of all the fresh water flowing into the oceans on earth. So given somehow that the Gulf of Mexico could be isolated from the oceans, I estimate it could take anywhere between 700 to 2100 years for the water level of the Gulf of Mexico to drop about 2000 ft due to evaporation, depending on the amount of water flowing from rivers, reduction of surface area, etc.
To isolate the Gulf of Mexico as it now stands seems to require essentially damming the lengths of the straight of Florida and the Yucatan channel. Each of these run about 200 kms shortest distance between land masses. BTW - this does not seem out of reach of immense human possibilities if we ever wanted to make a man-made dam:)
The depths of these I have been unable to determine exactly, but I estimate they could average anywhere between 2000 to 3500 ft. Is it possible that they are less, or that there is a path which is less, or perhaps there was smaller lengths due to since dissipated land mass?
This is all towards determining whether or not it could have been possible that the Gulf of Mexico was isolated or partially isolated enough so it could have a water level lower by approximately 2000 ft below today's sea level.
To get an idea of the competition between evaporation and inflow through ocean channels, e.g. through the straight of Florida, I have calculated some scenarios using a quasi-steady Bernoulli-like flow model. This allows consideration of the width and depth of channels connecting the Gulf of Mexico to the ocean with the Gulf of Mexico at a lower level than the ocean. This has assumed a drop at the channel.
1) Assume current effective channel width of 400 km, and try to maintain a difference of 2000 ft. The pressure is about 1000 psi. This is unsustainable from evaporation. It would take only about three days for the difference to decrease by 1000 ft.
2) Determine the maximum width of the channel and water level difference necessary to maintain an equilibrium with evaporation, ignoring additional inflow from rivers.etc:
Channel width
Equilibrium difference in level
------------------ --------------------------------- 400 km .................. 41 cm
200 km .................. 65 cm
40 km ................... 1.9 m
4 km .................... 8.8 m
1 km .................... 22 m
0.5 km .................. 35 m
7 m ..................... 2000 ft
3) Given the width of the channel, determine the change of the level with time for a variety of initial levels. This allows the possibility to determine time dependant scenarios, e.g. given some catastrophic or otherwise sudden event leaving the gulf very low, could the rise to equilibrium have been slow enough to take a long time >100 yrs? Or given that the channel width was decreased by some event, how long would it take to drop the level? I have attached a series of red arrow flow graphs showing the result with certain inital conditions as lines. These graphs are of the difference between sea level and gulf level in units of centimeters on the vertical scale and units of hours on the horizontal scale. The difference between sea level and gulf level means that a positive increase on the graph represents a lowering of the relative level of the gulf. Each is titled according to the width of the channel in kilometers. Note that the scale of the axis does change from graph to graph.
The summary from graphs is essentially the gulf fills up pretty quickly away from equilibrium except for the smallest channel widths less than 4 km. The symmetry from above and below equilibrium is interesting and useful for analysis. An isolation event creating a channel 4km will take about 6 years to drop the gulf by half its equilibrium level of 8.8 meters below sea level. Even a 0.5 km channel will take only about 25 years to reach half its equilibrium value of 35 meters. A 50 meter channel takes about 100 yrs to drop halfway to its equilibrium drop of about 160 m. As shown by the fact that only a 7 meter wide channel can sustain 2000 ft indefinitely, the only way to have sustain such large diifferences in depths is to have a very narrow channel - or of course, no channel at all.
Also, the Red Earth people had an extensive trade system in the Arctic at about the same time.
Both of these observations are consistent with a lowering of sea level during a warmer than Present segment of time.
Isotope studies of the Greenland and Antartic Ice Cores include assumptions that are consistent with Ocean waters periodically being as much as 9 degrees Celcius warmer than the Present.
There is NO evidence that CO2 was a SIGNIFICANT cause of ANY of these temperature and Ocean Level cycles.
How did the ocean water levels get to be lower during warmer times?
Consequently, we rarely empirically test our opinions, assumptions, hypotheses or models. We rely on inference, usually statistical inference.
If sea level was low at the same time that the oceans were warm, then that was an observed effect of an unknown cause.
You do know that "civilised" is incorrectly spelled, right?
It's spelled "civilized", moron!
Are you a recent graduate from a government "ska-ule"?
Dummed Down?
You do know that "civilised" is incorrectly spelled, right?
It's spelled "civilized", moron!
Are you a recent graduate from a government "ska-ule"?
Dummed Down?
Apparently, you have inadvertenly 'wandered' onto an adult thread. Send me an email if you can't find you way back to the 'kiddie' section.
I'd love to see the source of your data. I'm looking for some more good global BC population sources.
Historians always over estimate the size of armies and underestimate the population. Example in Roman Republican times the Army was four Legions and an equal number of allies, more or less. A legion was about 5000 men between 18 and 45, with a 16 year four campaign obligation, this speaks of a high population density. The Frogs in the 16th century had a standard, more or less, army size of about 25,000 and they could put 3 regional armies in the field, not for long, the Spanish could do the same, again more or less.
In Sargons time the standing army was approximately 3000, as far as we can guess, with levies maybe 15,000 max. When you look at the number of people to support these troops, you can guess about the number of people that support them. For every man on the line it takes 50 to a hundred to support them, 0-80 years old.
Searching for "Civilised" using Google I found this amusing item :
The entire civilised world is shocked beyond civilised expression
It is almost on topic for this thread since the Flat Earth Society
is mentioned and they would not accept this discussion as pertaining to their flat earth!
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Gods, Graves, Glyphs
Click here: Gods, Graves, Glyphs
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Global Warming Hoax , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Global Warming Hoax | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
According to Chambers, the preferred spelling of civilised is civilised. Civilized is an alternate spelling.
civilise - to instruct in arts and refinements.
civilised - refined in interests and tastes, sophisticated, self-controlled and fair-spoken
One to three feet drop per year. Compare with the one foot per century rise in sea level due to Global Warming.
Sea level is rising slowly, but this seems reasonable since most of the ice from the past ice-age is gone already. There isn't much more to go.
LOL. Good article, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.