Tweet

Originally Posted by DJDIGGLER

Good post Fit!

Tmann you can't honestly look at the pic you posted and tell me the iceberg isn't still huge?! Sure the size underwater is way larger but the part sticking up still would effect the water level.

Again don't take my word for it. Fill a glass halfway up with water. Fill it to the top of the glass with ice. Mark it on the outside of the glass with a pencil. Once it melts look to see if it has risen past the original mark. If so.........Point proven.

Doesn't matter how huge the ice berg is, because 80 to 90% is under water is going to reduce in size. When it reduces in size the 10 to 20% above the water, which was clearly explainded as less dense snow, it would not make up for all the volume lost by the 80 to 90% that melted under water. You keep missing the fact that underwater combined mass of all the icebergs that would melt would take up less space when melted. Like I said, it's basic physics. You melt ice, the volume decrease, period. If 80 to 90 % of the mass is below water and only 10 to 20% is above the ratios are not enough to make a difference in the over all water volume. I would be willing to bet that an ice cube in water has about 1/5 of its mass above water. So, you are telling me that when that ice cube melts it will raise the water level? That's wrong. Do the ice tray thing and let me know in the morning if the ice cubes melted and over flowed the tray.

Tweetso how do you account for the sea level rising? Are you putting mountain glaciers into your equation?

yes, no doubt, the earth overall will regulate. But the sea levels are rising and will continue to rise. If water rises, there's less dry land. Balancing - but not in our favor.

TweetI moved this to politics and religion.

we should rename the subforum Politics, Religion and Other



I love hearing everyones insight

Tweethttps://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html

Some glacier and icecap facts

Glaciers store about 75% of the world's freshwater, and if all land ice melted the seas would rise about 70 meters (about 230 feet).

During the last ice age (when glaciers covered more land area than today) the sea level was about 400 feet lower than it is today. At that time, glaciers covered almost one-third of the land.

During the last warm spell, 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet higher than they are today. About three million years ago the seas could have been up to 165 feet higher.

North America's longest glacier is the Bering Glacier in Alaska, measuring 204 kilometers long.

Glacial ice can be very old—in some Canadian Arctic icecaps, ice at the base is over 100 000 years old.

The land underneath parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be up to 2.5 kilometers below sea level, due to the weight of the ice.

Antarctic ice shelves may calve icebergs that are over 80 kilometers long.

The Kutiah Glacier in Pakistan holds the record for the fastest glacial surge. In 1953, it raced more than 12 kilometers in 3 months, averaging about 112 meters per day.

Glacial ice often appears blue when it has become very dense. Years of compression gradually make the ice denser over time, forcing out the tiny air pockets between crystals. When glacier ice becomes extremely dense, the ice absorbs all other colors in the spectrum and reflects primarily blue, which is what we see. When glacier ice is white, that usually means that there are many tiny air bubbles still in the ice.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Fit2bLarge

so how do you account for the sea level rising? Are you putting mountain glaciers into your equation?

yes, no doubt, the earth overall will regulate. But the sea levels are rising and will continue to rise. If water rises, there's less dry land. Balancing - but not in our favor.

Read this:

Sea Level
Warmer temperatures are expected to raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers, and melting parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Warmer temperatures also increase precipitation, as described below. Snowfall over Greenland and Antarctica is expected to increase by about 5 percent for every 1°F warming in temperatures. Increased snowfall tends to cause sea level to drop if the snow does not melt during the following summer, because the only other place for the water to be is the ocean. (The amount of water in the atmosphere is less than the water it takes to raise the oceans one millimeter). Considering all of these factors, the IPCC estimates that sea level will rise 9 to 88 cm by the year 2100. A recent EPA study estimated that global sea level has a 50 percent chance of rising 45 cm (1-1/2 ft) by the year 2100, but a 1-in-100 chance of a rise of about 110 cm (over 3-1/2 ft).


Source: IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001)

Over the longer run, more substantial changes in sea level are possible. Some scientists believe that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could slide into the oceans after a sustained warming, or if other factors raised sea level. The vulnerability of this ice sheet is poorly understood. It contains enough ice to raise sea level 6 meters (20 feet), and coastal scientists generally agree that sea level was 20 feet higher than today during the last interglacial period, which was only slightly warmer than today. While some scientists have suggested that there is fossil evidence on the polar ocean floor that this ice sheet collapsed during the last interglacial period, there is no scientific consensus on this question.

An EPA study solicited the opinions of 8 US glaciologists on the vulnerability of this ice sheet. All but one concluded that Antarctica is most likely to have a negligible contribution to sea level over the next century. Nevertheless, they all agreed that there is some risk that a catastrophic collapse of the ice sheet could occur over a couple of centuries if polar water temperatures warm by a few degrees. Most of the scientists estimated that such a risk had a probability of between 1 and 5 percent. Because of this risk, as well as the possibility of a larger than expected melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the EPA study estimated that there is a 1 percent chance that global sea level could rise by more than 4 meters (almost 14 feet) in the next two centuries.

Sea level rise along the US coast is likely to be somewhat greater than the global average. The EPA study includes a set of projections that coastal residents can use to calculate how much sea level will rise in specific communities. Along the coast of New York, which typifies the US Coast, sea level is likely to rise 26 cm (10 inches) by 2050 and 55 cm (almost 2 feet) by 2100. There is also a 1 percent chance of a 55 cm rise by 2050, a 120 cm rise (4 ft) by 2100, and a 450 cm rise (15 feet) by the year 2200.
Associated Pages
Global Temperature
Sea Level
US Climate

Bro, there are saying that there is only a 50% chance of global sea level rising 45 cm by the year 2100. That's 1 1/2 feet in 94 years! You are telling me that they can build up the beaches 1 1/2 feet in 94 years? This is far from a significant problem.

Here's the link:

https://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...eSeaLevel.html

You'll notice this is straight from the EPA. They are the experts on this stuff.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Fit2bLarge

https://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html

Some glacier and icecap facts

During the last ice age (when glaciers covered more land area than today) the sea level was about 400 feet lower than it is today. At that time, glaciers covered almost one-third of the land.

And they can prove this how? Who exactly was around to prove this data? Come on bro, you are too smart to think for a second that today's scientists have any idea of this kind of data. There is absolutely no concrete data to support this claim. How can they prove the water was that much higher? How? It's all phuking speculation. It's all scientific theories and guesses based on a bunch of guys in lab coats. The last ice age was way before man was on this planet so there is no way that any of the things scientists state about stuff that long ago is fact. It's all theory.

TweetI heard it is much greater prob 007. EPA is a government agency, and they do not want ppl knowing about what is really going on. There are parts of the greater north that are actually loosing 1/4" of land a month. In a few yrs these ppl will be without land where their homes are. I watch something on this about 3 months ago. There is this guy that is high up in the meterlogical (sp) that says in the next 10yr there will be something major that will happen and he knows this for a fact, and was told by Bush, not to pubically say anything and this was a warning from Bush. Whatever it is going to be major. Not only will we have prob with weather changes, but in ozone and water temp causing certain fish to die off and micro-organizims, not to mention cities under water in the lower south. PPl just do want to look at the total picture and large companies are compartmentalized and its a Peter Principal that will cause the domino effect. The time is now for change, not only in fuel emissions from autos, but from industry, but its not happening, and even if it does, it is not fast enough to make a significant change.

TweetAnd, most ice that melts on land becomes absorbed by the land. I live in Colorado and we have some of the highest snow fall of any state and yet, when it melts it doesn't flood everything below it, it get's sucked upmy the earth. Glaciers that are over land will have a lot of their water absorbedby land. It's want land does, it soakes up water. We had a ski resort last yeat get over 80 feet in one week of snow. No flooding occured in that area. So where did all that frozen water go? I'll tell you. All 80 feet, not 8, but 80 feet melted into water and was absorbed through the ground and evaporated into the air. That's how nature works. If 80 feet in one week didn't cause flooding then glaciers over land won't cause flooding either.

I will give you this, if every glacier and every piece of ice melted in one day, then I would hands down submit that that would cause flooding because there would be no way for it to be absorbed. But what we have in actuality is a very very slow ass melting which will resort in ground absorsion and evaporation.

Tweetso you agree then that your theory of glass full ice is flawed...

During the last warm spell, 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet higher than they are today. About three million years ago the seas could have been up to 165 feet higher.

https://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html

Imagine that? 165 feet higher 125,000 years ago. this is NOT accounting the abuse now.

165+ feet would do quite a bit of damage to the coast line

Tweet

Originally Posted by mick-G

I heard it is much greater prob 007. EPA is a government agency, and they do not want ppl knowing about what is really going on. There are parts of the greater north that are actually loosing 1/4" of land a month. In a few yrs these ppl will be without land where their homes are. I watch something on this about 3 months ago. There is this guy that is high up in the meterlogical (sp) that says in the next 10yr there will be something major that will happen and he knows this for a fact, and was told by Bush, not to pubically say anything and this was a warning from Bush. Whatever it is going to be major. Not only will we have prob with weather changes, but in ozone and water temp causing certain fish to die off and micro-organizims, not to mention cities under water in the lower south. PPl just do want to look at the total picture and large companies are compartmentalized and its a Peter Principal that will cause the domino effect. The time is now for change, not only in fuel emissions from autos, but from industry, but its not happening, and even if it does, it is not fast enough to make a significant change.

Ok, the ozone, now that's an issue right there. That's a legitimate issue. If our planets ability to limit the UV rays from the sun weakens that's bad. However, on the flip side, if the ozone continues to weaken and the temperature continues to go up that will increase the amount of evaporation that takes place. It's all part of the cycle. More heat, more evaporation. More evaporation, the more rain that will drop somewhere. On this note I will give room for concern. It could so happen than much of the future rain caused by all the evaporation could drop in the same proximity which could result in localized flooding. Or, it very well could become so hot and so dry than it's like Colorado. It's so dry here that you can see the rain falling from the clouds and it evaporates before it can hit the ground. This is the result of a very dry climate. Even though their is a lot of moisture in the upper air, the lower air dries it up before it hits.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Fit2bLarge

so you agree then that your theory of glass full ice is flawed...

During the last warm spell, 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet higher than they are today. About three million years ago the seas could have been up to 165 feet higher.

https://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html

Imagine that? 165 feet higher 125,000 years ago. this is NOT accounting the abuse now.

165+ feet would do quite a bit of damage to the coast line

No, I don't believe that BS for one second. How the hell can anyone prove what the sea level were 125,000 years ago? They can't. The glass of ice is something we did in physics class and I know for a fact that when ice melts the volume decreases. Read this on the comparison of ice versus water:

https://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembo...ensityice.html

Basic stuff bro. Ice is approximately 9% larger in volume than water. So, when ice melts it takes up less space. That is a scientific fact. Unlike this guess work of how high water levels were 125,000 years ago. If scientists told you that the temperature was 100 degrees on average 125,000 years ago, would you belive them? Surely you are too smart for that. I know you can't possible believe in some data conjured up by some dudes in lab coats who have no phukin idea what actually took place 125,000 years ago. There is absolutely no phukin way those guys have any idea of what really was that long ago. No way.

TweetAnd finally, here it is:

Look at the ice in the water and watch how the water level does absolutely NOTHING when it melts. Just as I said it wouldn't. It compares the first simulation to icebergs and ice floating in the water such as the arcitc circle.

The next one, which is an exageration, has an ice cube suspened on wood above the water level. Yes, this one does raise the levels but show me one place on earth where we have ice that will just melt right into the water without any land to absorb it. Besides icebergs that is. The comparison is that it's similar to that of Greenland and Antarctica. Well, Antarctica isn't melting, at all. Greenland is a perfect example of the water being absorbed by the land because there are parts of Greenland where the snow and ice are melted and there is grass and flowers. Which we all know are absorbing water.

This clearly proves my point about the ice bergs without any question what so ever.

https://oceandrilling.coe.tamu.edu/cu.../activity.html

PS - you have to clink on the simulations and then click play. See for yourself, ice that is on the surface of the water will have no effect on water levels.

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

https://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?