The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[BigBoxaJunk]

I was thinking that but did not post it. I doubt there is that much water in the ice. Might loose a few islands here and there and Jersey shore would be altered.

Most of my part of Indiana is 800+ feet above sea level, so I'm not going to start building my Ark just yet.

 

[churchmouse]

Most of my part of Indiana is 800+ feet above sea level, so I'm not going to start building my Ark just yet.

I doubt we would loose all that much land mass. But, I am no scientist and have not stayed at a Holiday in for a good while so....

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The more I think of it, the more I decide that I'm probably ok either way.

If the earth is warming - I've always been able to stand the heat and I tan easily.
If energy costs skyrocket - I don't travel much, I heat with wood, and if I have to I can give up my smart phone to off-set costs.

 

[88GT]

Not starting an argument but if I read correctly you say that melting the ice caps could decrease sea levels. Trying to wrap my small brain around that.
Explain pleas.

zero covered it pretty much. Take a liter of water and a liter of water. Freeze one. Then measure the volume of the solid form of the water and the liquid form of the water. The solid form will have a larger volume now because water expands when it freezes. Floating ice displaces the water by the volume of the ice mass. When the ice mass melts, the volume of the liquid form now displaces less water than the ice form. I picture it this way: Take a container of water with a floating ice cube. The ice displaces the water, which increase the volume of the whole unit. Now, imagine that the ice cube were removed but the volume of the cube was left as a void in the water. When the ice cube melts, and the resulting water is poured into the void volume, it won't fill up the void 100%. Which means that the total volume of the unit (water plus melted ice) is not less than the total volume of the water + ice.

Granted, I'm not saying that the reduction would be noticeable. But there is an awful lot of floating polar ice, and the cumulative difference might add up to a significant amount. Let's say for example that in the experiment above we found that there was a 1.3mL reduction in volume for every liter of ice that melted. If there are 1,000,000 liters of ice, that's 1.3 million mL of volume reduced. That's 1300 L of volume reduction (if I did the math/conversion correctly). Like I said, probably not noticeably, or even measurable, given the volume of the ocean as a whole.

And there are other factors, always. Ice on land clearly would add to it, so Antarctic ice, glaciers, etc. would contribute to ocean volume. But even if one calculated the contribution those ice sources would have to total ocean volume, it wouldn't be the net total because you'd have to account for the offset floating ice contributes to the total.

I only point out that little tidbit to get people thinking that we won't have nearly the catastrophic results from melting ice that they would have us believe. And so that consumers of this information will be able to think and evaluate it critically. If the article is assuming that the earth's total volume of ice is going to have only an additive effect, you can suspect the data and conclusions from the get-go. Informed consumers, that's what this is about.

It's a pretty safe bet. If one shows up I'll be sure to redact my statement!

Hi, my name is 88GT. I'm a scientist.

 

[Manatee]

Floating ice displaces the same amount of water it would otherwise occupy as liquid water (m/d=m'/d'). Land-based ice melting would cause sea levels to rise. Greenland and Antarctica are the largest sources of land-based trapped water. The northern polar cap melting would have no effect on sea levels.

A floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Since water expands when it freezes, one ounce of frozen water has a larger volume than one ounce of liquid water. A completely submerged ice cube weighing one ounce, for example, displaces MORE than one ounce of liquid water. The cube will rise until the volume remaining under the surface displaces only one ounce of water.

 

[88GT]

Floating ice displaces the same amount of water it would otherwise occupy as liquid water. Land-based ice melting would cause sea levels to rise. Greenland and Antarctica are the largest sources of trapped water.

True. Assuming that the above-water amount of ice is equal to the difference in volume between the frozen and melted H20. I did ignore the additional factor that the ice doesn't displace the total of its volume because some of it above the water line. It was incomplete; I should have included that bit. So I'll amend my explanation to say that the ice displaces the water by the same amount of volume that is submerged. I made my statements on the premise that the ice was completely submerged, which we know doesn't happen. Thanks for the clarification. That's what I get for trying to keep it simple.

Take-home point: melted floating ice won't increase ocean volume, and thus, won't cause sea levels to rise.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Another thing I've noticed is that the speed of melting ice appears to be directly proportional to the number of shots that are added to the drink.

 

[AtTheMurph]

What's the correct temperature? Ask any watermelon that and sit back and relax.


(a watermelon is a person who is green on the outside, but red on the inside.)

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

What's the correct temperature? Ask any watermelon that and sit back and relax.


(a watermelon is a person who is green on the outside, but red on the inside.)

Does that work out the same even for the seedless ones?

Can you still thump them with your thumb to test for ripeness?

 

[KG1]

zero covered it pretty much. Take a liter of water and a liter of water. Freeze one. Then measure the volume of the solid form of the water and the liquid form of the water. The solid form will have a larger volume now because water expands when it freezes. Floating ice displaces the water by the volume of the ice mass. When the ice mass melts, the volume of the liquid form now displaces less water than the ice form. I picture it this way: Take a container of water with a floating ice cube. The ice displaces the water, which increase the volume of the whole unit. Now, imagine that the ice cube were removed but the volume of the cube was left as a void in the water. When the ice cube melts, and the resulting water is poured into the void volume, it won't fill up the void 100%. Which means that the total volume of the unit (water plus melted ice) is not less than the total volume of the water + ice.

Granted, I'm not saying that the reduction would be noticeable. But there is an awful lot of floating polar ice, and the cumulative difference might add up to a significant amount. Let's say for example that in the experiment above we found that there was a 1.3mL reduction in volume for every liter of ice that melted. If there are 1,000,000 liters of ice, that's 1.3 million mL of volume reduced. That's 1300 L of volume reduction (if I did the math/conversion correctly). Like I said, probably not noticeably, or even measurable, given the volume of the ocean as a whole.

And there are other factors, always. Ice on land clearly would add to it, so Antarctic ice, glaciers, etc. would contribute to ocean volume. But even if one calculated the contribution those ice sources would have to total ocean volume, it wouldn't be the net total because you'd have to account for the offset floating ice contributes to the total.

I only point out that little tidbit to get people thinking that we won't have nearly the catastrophic results from melting ice that they would have us believe. And so that consumers of this information will be able to think and evaluate it critically. If the article is assuming that the earth's total volume of ice is going to have only an additive effect, you can suspect the data and conclusions from the get-go. Informed consumers, that's what this is about.


Hi, my name is 88GT. I'm a scientist.

Another pretty simple example of this would be to take a container of water+ice cubes and fill it to the brim. Wait for the ice to melt and see if that container overflows. (hint: It won't)

 

[churchmouse]

On page now. makes perfect sense. Has any one sent this to AlGore

 

[KG1]

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist.

 

[mike45]

While there is disagreement on details of climate change, I just don't see why we shouldn't leave this planet better than how we found it. If the green crowd is wrong then I guess there's nothing to worry about, but if they are right we will eventually come to a point where it's unsustainable. Better safe than sorry if you ask me. I want to know why some people on here don't agree with keeping the planet clean and suitable for people for generations that'll come after us.

Well if you want your electricity bill to necessarily sky rocket,
then keep up the good work. My local REMC told me they can buy 1 gigawatt from a coal fired generator for $4. However if there is power from a wind mill or solar available they must buy it first at $9 per gigawatt. That my friend is because we are trying to save the planet from a made-up problem.

 

[findingZzero]

I'm a retired chemist with a brain tumor, a 9mm, and a black fedora.

 

[findingZzero]

[video=youtube_share;aOCqHRpQh88]http://youtu.be/aOCqHRpQh88[/video]

 

[churchmouse]

I'm a retired chemist with a brain tumor, a 9mm, and a black fedora.

 

[churchmouse]

[video=youtube_share;aOCqHRpQh88]http://youtu.be/aOCqHRpQh88[/video]

That well covers ice already in the water. I am interested in all the polar and glacier ice and the volumes it will add. Good discussion and points made.

 

[findingZzero]

Is sea level rising?

Of course NOAA is a tool of the new World Order, the trilateral commission, secretly funded by Al Gore and Georgio Soros, so who cares what they say.......

 

[churchmouse]

Is sea level rising?

Movie would not load....

 

[CathyInBlue]

And then there's the fact that higher global temps results from/in higher surface water temps, which itself results in greater cloud formation, taking more water out of the world's oceans. Also, increased cloud formation results in lower surface solar radiation, greater reflection of sunlight back out into space, which has a global cooling effect. Also, plant growth has never been taking place at a higher rate than it is now, what with all the plant food (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) in the atmosphere. Greater CO[SUB]2[/SUB] means more vegetation. More vegetation means more water being taken up from the land and air by that vegetation.

Mother Nature may be a *****, but she's a wonderously self-regulating *****.

Further thought, all the glaciers and snow pack on land that would actually have an effect on sea levels, that's fresh water ice. There's no such thing as salt-water snow. That makes it even less dense again than the saline liquid water of the oceans. Its introduction to the world's seas as liquid water will make those oceans ever so slightly less dense once mixed.