Global Warming

[T-Man007]

Re: Global Warming

this is greenland alone. now you're not gonna tell me the lab dudes in white coat can't measure this with today's technology?

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/ar...land-Ice-Sheet

Greenland Ice Sheet


Britannica Concise
Print Article :: Email Article :: Cite Article



Single ice cap, Greenland.
Covering about 80% of the island of Greenland, it is the largest ice mass in the Northern Hemisphere, second only to the Antarctic. It extends 1,570 mi (2,530 km) north to south, has a maximum width of 680 mi (1,094 km) near its northern margin, and an average thickness of about 5,000 ft (1,500 m). The ice sheet rises to two domes; the northern dome, reaching more than 10,000 ft (3,000 m), is its thickest and coldest point. In volume it contains 12% of the world's glacial ice. If it melted, the sea level would rise 20 ft (6 m).


i think you're over simplyfing thermal expansion. there's a measureable degree of displacement change when fresh water meets salt water and we're still not accounting for ice above sea-level that contributes to the rise.

Fact - Sea levels are rising - modern technology proves this
*
Fact - Earth is getting warmer - modern technology proves this

so what's causing the phenomena?

The thing is, and they said it perfectly, 'if' it melted .... It's all an if. What they don't tell you is how high the average temperature would have to get for all of it to melt. And, they are only considering the possibility of all the glacier mass going into the ocean. What about all the water that will be absorbed by the land? What about all teh water that will evaporate? If it gets hot enough to melt ALL the ice on Greenland, it's going to be hot as hell. That will cause ALL of the water on the earth to evaporate more. I keep telling you guys this but no one is listening. The only way for all the ice to melt would be from a dramatic heat rise. That heat rise will cause more evaporation. All these guys do is look at the solid amount of ice and calculate home much the ocean would rise if it all melted into it. They have no way of knowing how much will evaporate and how much will be absorbed by the dry land underneath. Therefore, it's still just a bunch of guys in lab coats doing guess work. Because, and just like the past, they have no way of knowing how much of that water will actually make it into the ocean. Greenland is a large island and it's silly to think that all that ice would just melt into the ocean without being absorbed by the land. And, since ice melts from the outside in, it's more logical to assume that only the ice along the outer part will actually end upin the ocean. As more and more land is exposed, the center ice will melt and be absorbed by the land. It's not like all the ice will just melt at once.

[T-Man007]

Re: Global Warming

here's a nice read from nasa

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1112

i need to get to bed

Per NASA, water is rising 3 millimeter per year. Come on bro, 3 millimeters? That means it would take 33 years to raise one meter. Could one meter do some damage in certain places, sure. But, it 33 years if the world is getting hotter then evaporation will increase and the rising of water will become slower. After all, evaporation takes water away. Nature will always balance itself out. If it gets too hot and ice melts into the ocean, evaporation will increase and remove water from the ocean. Yet, none of these so called experts have stated anything about evaporation. It's common sense. Everyone know water evaporates and the hooter it gets the more that evaporates.

[Fit2bLarge]

Re: Global Warming

here's an interesting read on the hydrologic cycle from nasa

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/ear...le/hydro7.html

The five processes of the hydrologic cycle.

Together, these five processes - condensation, precipitation, infiltration, runoff, and evapotranspiration- make up the Hydrologic Cycle. Water vapor condenses to form clouds, which result in precipitation when the conditions are suitable. Precipitation falls to the surface and infiltrates the soil or flows to the ocean as runoff. Surface water (e.g., lakes, streams, oceans, etc.), evaporates, returning moisture to the atmosphere, while plants return water to the atmosphere by transpiration.



Logic tells me the majority of melting ice coming from greenland runsoff into the ocean, and not absorbed by the land.

we can add the hydrologic cycle to the equation - but the net effect will be the same at the end. again, its the ice above sea-level.

ice density expands 9% you said. so what happens to the rest?

if the majority of icebergs are 85% below sea-level and we can account for 9% of that being expansion, what happens to the other 6% above sea level?

[Fit2bLarge]

Re: Global Warming

Per NASA, water is rising 3 millimeter per year. Come on bro, 3 millimeters? That means it would take 33 years to raise one meter. Could one meter do some damage in certain places, sure. But, it 33 years if the world is getting hotter then evaporation will increase and the rising of water will become slower. After all, evaporation takes water away. Nature will always balance itself out. If it gets too hot and ice melts into the ocean, evaporation will increase and remove water from the ocean. Yet, none of these so called experts have stated anything about evaporation. It's common sense. Everyone know water evaporates and the hooter it gets the more that evaporates.

t-man, our arguement is NOT how much water. its fact, there is more water. your arguement is that melting of ice onto the ocean wont raise sea-levels based on a high-school home experiment.

i think there's alot more CURRENT scientific evidence to support that ice melting is incresing sea-level than evidence that proves that it is NOT.

does anyone else have any opinions?

I do see your point T-man, but I don't think its as simple as you paint it.

[T-Man007]

Re: Global Warming

t-man, our arguement is NOT how much water. its fact, there is more water. your arguement is that melting of ice onto the ocean wont raise sea-levels based on a high-school home experiment.

i think there's alot more CURRENT scientific evidence to support that ice melting is incresing sea-level than evidence that proves that it is NOT.

does anyone else have any opinions?

I do see your point T-man, but I don't think its as simple as you paint it.

I'm not saying that the ice on the outer part of Greenland won't go in the water. What I'm saying is as the outer ice, that closest to the ocean, is already melted and the remaining ice is miles inland, it's very difficult for me to believe that the slowly melting ice is going to turn into water and travel miles and miles to get to the ocean and not be absorbed by the land. Imagine if you will this scenario. You take a huge pice of ice like 6 feet cubed and you put it right on the edge of your yard and sidewalk. Yes, without any doubt what so ever, some of the melted ice will end up on the sidewalk. However, if you move that block of ice in say 5 feet from the sidewalk and let it melt I seriously doubt that much, if any, would make it all the way to the saide walk due to the land absorbing it. It's just like the ski resort example I gave. There was a ski resort that got ove 80 feet in one week here is Colorado. Yet, there was no flooding what so ever and it's a common fact that snow will melt faster than ice. So, if 80 feet of snow didn't cause flooding I don't believe that the inland ice of Greenland is ever going to reach the ocean at the slow rate in which it melts. I already stated that if all the ice were tomelt in one day, then I would agree there would be a huge raise in water levels. But, once the outer ice melts and the inner ice has to travel miles and miles to get to the ocean there won't be very much that actually makes it there. And let's say for example this starts to form rivers of melting ice, then all they need to do is stop the rivers from reaching the sea and form lakes or man made resevoirs to make sure the inner ice doesn't reach the ocean. Of course, this is only a problem if ALL the ice were to actually melt and that would take a long long long time. I've built snowmen in my front yard that lasted a week after all the snow melted so I know solid ice won't melt that fast.

[mick-G]

Re: Global Warming

007 i differ. I mean how can you say if you put an icecube in water when melted it doesn't raise?? It may not seem like a difference, but i would bet if you put in a model land mass at the same level b4 melting, that you will see the water cover more of the land, not only that, Glacers have much more mass than we see at the top, submerged,which is a big difference than the icecube which is floating with mostly and even amount of ice floating out as well as submerged. You can take all these statistics you want, but i certainly wouldn't go by what EPA has to say. There has already been isolated probs with fish dying that is unexplained. Tell me then, why is it that Bush doesn't what this meterologist to speak out on what will happen?, and literally has a gag on him. Simple, they do not want a panic, just as in anything the us government has in place to protect our welfare. How about the stupid red, orange, yellow, green?? This is our protection against terrorism from the government?? lol! Prob is there is nothing in place, nor is anyone really doing anything about emmissions, or even the problems with satellites causing even more probs with the ozone. NASA, EPA etc they are all government agencies, of course they will tell ppl there is no prob. You mark my word, within the next 10yrs there will be many other natural disasters caused by global warming.

[Fit2bLarge]

Re: Global Warming

come on, nobody else?

[Fit2bLarge]

Re: Global Warming

year old article

http://www.physorg.com/news4598.html

Large regions of the North Atlantic Ocean have been growing fresher since the late 1960s as melting glaciers and increased precipitation, both associated with greenhouse warming, have enhanced continental runoff into the Arctic and sub-Arctic seas. Over the same time period, salinity records show that large pulses of extra sea ice and fresh water from the Arctic have flowed into the North Atlantic. But, until now, the actual amounts and rates of fresh water accumulation have not been explicitly known.

[T-Man007]

Re: Global Warming

007 i differ. I mean how can you say if you put an icecube in water when melted it doesn't raise?? It may not seem like a difference, but i would bet if you put in a model land mass at the same level b4 melting, that you will see the water cover more of the land, not only that, Glacers have much more mass than we see at the top, submerged,which is a big difference than the icecube which is floating with mostly and even amount of ice floating out as well as submerged. You can take all these statistics you want, but i certainly wouldn't go by what EPA has to say. There has already been isolated probs with fish dying that is unexplained. Tell me then, why is it that Bush doesn't what this meterologist to speak out on what will happen?, and literally has a gag on him. Simple, they do not want a panic, just as in anything the us government has in place to protect our welfare. How about the stupid red, orange, yellow, green?? This is our protection against terrorism from the government?? lol! Prob is there is nothing in place, nor is anyone really doing anything about emmissions, or even the problems with satellites causing even more probs with the ozone. NASA, EPA etc they are all government agencies, of course they will tell ppl there is no prob. You mark my word, within the next 10yrs there will be many other natural disasters caused by global warming.

Mick, go look at the links I posted. The put a huge ice cube in water and when it melted the water stayed the same. And, if you go here http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/FAQ.htm you will see that ALL ice functions the exact same. Ice in glaciers is no different in density than ice in cube form. And, since the density is the same the boyancy will be the same. Floating ice, as I've posted already, is 80 to 90% of it's mass under water which is the exact same as floating glaciers. The properties of ice don't change. Go read the link and see for yourself.

Click this http://oceandrilling.coe.tamu.edu/cu.../activity.html and click on the first simulation and tell me if you think most of the ice is above water. Regular ice and floating glaciers and ice bergs all function the same because the density between ice and water is the same. And, if for some freak reason the ice od a glacier is denser, which it's not (read first link I posted) then that would result in even more of it's mass being below water and therefore would result in even less of an effect on water levels because the ice below the water would take upless space.

Go back and read all the links I posted on the properties of ice vs water and the two in here. It's physics, plain and simple.

[Fit2bLarge]

Re: Global Warming

Ice in glaciers is no different in density than ice in cube form. And, since the density is the same the boyancy will be the same. Floating ice, as I've posted already, is 80 to 90% of it's mass under water which is the exact same as floating glaciers. The properties of ice don't change. Go read the link and see for yourself.

wrong again t-man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(...twater_and_ice

so you dont account the salt in the water versus fresh water?

[mick-G]

Re: Global Warming

Iam not up on scientific terminology on this, but if i remember correctly, it has not only to do with the displacement with which this extra water will cause, but thermo changes from cold water currents mixing with higher temp currents that will cause significant weather changes and cause mass environmental changes in sea/ocean life. I guess we will see what the future holds.

[T-Man007]

Re: Global Warming

year old article

http://www.physorg.com/news4598.html

Large regions of the North Atlantic Ocean have been growing fresher since the late 1960s as melting glaciers and increased precipitation, both associated with greenhouse warming, have enhanced continental runoff into the Arctic and sub-Arctic seas. Over the same time period, salinity records show that large pulses of extra sea ice and fresh water from the Arctic have flowed into the North Atlantic. But, until now, the actual amounts and rates of fresh water accumulation have not been explicitly known.

I've already agreed with you on the fact that the outer ice will end up in the ocean because there is no where else for it to go. So, there is no surprise that there is more fresh water in the Ocean. I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing the fact that the inner ice will not make it to the ocean, that's what I'm arguing. Eventually, the outer ice will be gone and the amount that acutally reaches the ocean will decrease significantly if not stop all together. At this point, there will be no more raising and the small amount that does reach the ocean will eventually reach it's end.

Again, read the ice block example, it makes perfect sense because that's what we are talking about, ice over land, right?

[mick-G]

Re: Global Warming

Mick, go look at the links I posted. The put a huge ice cube in water and when it melted the water stayed the same. And, if you go here http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/FAQ.htm you will see that ALL ice functions the exact same. Ice in glaciers is no different in density than ice in cube form. And, since the density is the same the boyancy will be the same. Floating ice, as I've posted already, is 80 to 90% of it's mass under water which is the exact same as floating glaciers. The properties of ice don't change. Go read the link and see for yourself.

Lol, 007! These are Gov links! Do you actually think they want ppl to know about how bad it is? And there is no way an icecube can be same as a Glacier, lol! Go to the kitchen and get an icecube and put in water, you will see not much mass under. Glacier have litteraly miles of mass submerged, nothing compared to the top visible part. Also where do you get there is no displacement what ice melts?? This is very amusing. Put a line on a glass with a marker, fill it halfway full and add ice after melting i will be the level of water will be higher. Prob is icecubes like i said are much smaller and have little submerged compared to Glaciers. Don't believe everything you read that is put up by the Gov, it is done for a reason. We only hear what they want to tell us, not exactly what is really going on.

[T-Man007]

Re: Global Warming

wrong again t-man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(...twater_and_ice

so you dont account the salt in the water versus fresh water?

Of course I don't take salt water into account when comparing ice to ice bergs because ice bergs and glaciers are FRESH WATER, not salt water! So, I'm not wrong. I stated that ice and ice bergs are the same and you come back with somethign about salt water. That's out of context because salt water does not make become glaciers or ice bergs.

[T-Man007]

Re: Global Warming

Lol, 007! These are Gov links! Do you actually think they want ppl to know about how bad it is? And there is no way an icecube can be same as a Glacier, lol! Go to the kitchen and get an icecube and put in water, you will see not much mass under. Glacier have litteraly miles of mass submerged, nothing compared to the top visible part. Also where do you get there is no displacement what ice melts?? This is very amusing. Put a line on a glass with a marker, fill it halfway full and add ice after melting i will be the level of water will be higher. Prob is icecubes like i said are much smaller and have little submerged compared to Glaciers. Don't believe everything you read that is put up by the Gov, it is done for a reason. We only hear what they want to tell us, not exactly what is really going on.

Dude, did you not click the link. For crying out loud, they put an ice cube in the water and you can watch it melt and the water level stays the same! Ice is the expanded form of water so when it melts it takes up less volume. It's a fact of physics. Just go read the links I've posted. Oh, and don't forget, the EPA, NASA and the eviornmental groups in the government are theones saying the levels will rise. And, they don't exaclty see eye to eye with Republicans so to think they would cover up Bush's butt is silly. No way would enviornmentalists cover for Bush.