It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Glaciers Holding Back Sea-Level Rise Are Showing Signs of Collapse

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Dude that is definitely bobbing and weaving.


the majority of them are being held above water because they are attached to the ice sheet so when they break off the mass falls into the water and therefore displaces it.


Baloney how much support does the land lend to the ice shelf when it extends far out into the ocean? Come on every definition for ice shelf mentions they are floating on water. Now you're trying to claim ice shelves aren't floating on water?
edit on 23-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

No I completely understand what you are saying - and how you are trying to use it to derail this thread.

I've said from my first comment out: A) an ice shelf does not displace (much) water, but B) it does hold back the rest of the land ice. B) is exactly what the issue is in the OP.

You keep arguing A) to ignore B).



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: mc_squared


You could take a bathtub for an example and fill it to the brim. Then place 1000 pound weight partially in the water partially supported on the edge of the tub. The part in the water would still displace water according to its weight. The part on land will have no effect on the water. But Archimedes principle will be in effect.


What you are not accounting for is the ice sheet breaking off with your example. Your example is stable if you break off the weight and let it drop in the water then you would have a accurate example of what is going on.

The link and excerpt below directly addresses this.


The Archimedes’ Principle helps us understand why and how sea levels rise:

Archimedes’ Principle – When an object is completely or partially immersed in a fluid, the fluid exerts an upward force on the object equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.

Firstly, when considering melting ice and sea levels, we need to appreciate that ice is either already floating in the ocean or it is grounded on a landmass.

Because of Archimedes’ Principle, if the ice is already floating in the ocean, the total mass of the ocean and ice remains unchanged even when the ice melts. Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, has recently demonstrated that the difference in density between the fresh water ice and salt water of the oceans will add a small amount to sea levels when this ice melts.

However, the real rise in sea levels comes from ice that is grounded on a landmass. As the melted ice flows as water, or falls as ice chunks into the ocean it increases the total volume of the ocean. That is, ice discharged from a grounded ice sheet directly into the ocean has an immediate impact on sea level. Because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are sitting on land and not floating, they have the potential to raise sea levels significantly.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Nope I'm not ignoring step four I agree when they break there will be further displacement. But you're ignoring actual facts. As soon as the ice starts floating on the water prior to breaking off Archimedes principle is in effect.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

You said it does not displace much water. The only thing Grimi and I are discussing is when Archimedes principle comes into effect. Why you admitting it does displaced water but say not much. Means Archimedes principle is in effect.

You are saying I am trying to derail this thread which I am not. The derailment of this thread is caused by certain people pressing a incorrect opinion on Archimedes law of volume.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Man this thread has become a trainwreck.



8 minute mark of this video always sums this argument up better than anything.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I really wish you would pay attention to what I say. No I accounted for that in a couple of post. When the ice breaks off it will definitely increase the effect. But as soon as a milligram of weight enters a body of water Archimedes law of volume is in effect. At no point have I confronted anyone's statements about global warming, I only tried to bring into perspective the laws of volume.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I see you are the one who is bobbing and weaving.

Here is your original post.




Wow you're really grasping at straws aren't you? Do you think that iceberg broke off in the middle of the Antarctic and teleported itself to the ocean? No they were ice sheets that were already afloat therefore Archimedes principle had already "kicked in."


The ice bergs wouldn't be there if not for gravity breaking them off from the ice shelf. You are simply wrong or being completely intellectually dishonest.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I see a lot of pointless bickering, but no solutions. If you were a benevolent dictator of the world what would you do to solve this problem? Isn't it beyond the control of humans to fix?



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Nope that was my response when someone replied to my original post.


You are completely married to your idea and ignoring the basic principles of Archimedes laws on volume.
edit on 23-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

And I responded to that post. Your original was about an iceberg and you seem to think the displacement of water as an ice burg is the same as when it was part of the ice shelf which is wrong.

As per your own words quoted here.




You must've failed to read my post. I was not speaking of glaciers calving off, I was speaking of ice sheets splitting and floating away.


So since you admit you are talking about the ice sheet (you corrected to ice shelf) you will have to admit that once it breaks away it will displace the water which is what we have told you and provided links and diagrams to.

Don't bob and weave from your own statements.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Good find, we truly have a problem when our elected officials come across and someone who has failed high school science.

Everyone of these threads becomes a trainwreck. Once Greathouse is done, I am sure someone else will come along with the usual rhetoric.
edit on 23-5-2015 by jrod because: we



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Now I see how you came to your opinion of my statement. You looked at the first word and ran with it. The following is my original post.



Iceberg B-15 is the world's largest recorded iceberg.[Note 1] It measured around 295 kilometres (183 mi) long and 37 kilometres (23 mi) wide, with a surface area of 11,000 square kilometres (4,200 sq mi)—larger than the whole island of Jamaica. Calved from the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica in March 2000, Iceberg B-15 broke up into smaller icebergs, the largest of which was named Iceberg B-15A. In 2003, B-15A drifted away from Ross Island into the Ross Sea and headed north, eventually breaking up into several smaller icebergs in October 2005. After almost a decade, parts of B-15 still had not melted.[1]


The term iceberg happens when it calved from the ice shelf. Now we have already established ice shelves float on water by the definition of ice shelves. I have already conceded twice that when the iceberg breaks away from the ice shelf Archimedes law of volume is increased. Faced with the fact of ice floating on water and displacement you cannot even agree that Archimedes Law of volume was already in effect before b15 broke off became a iceberg.
edit on 23-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Seems a bit strange to me that as its winter down south, and the earth mean temperature has been stable for the last 16 years, ice is still shifting, and thawing, I presume there is more than one natural force at work to achieve what is going on down south.
As regards that huge bogie, CO2, Woods hole Oceanography institute issued a recent report stating that annul CO 2 production gets absorbed by up to 50% by the worlds oceans and land masses (vegetation).
The other 50% ? I have no idea, I just read reports that catch my eye, No scientific training at all, but I can think for myself, and am old enough not to hysterical over things I have no control over.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse


from yorkshirelad

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Archimedes principle kicks into action. It does not matter if the iceberg melts or not the sea level rise is the same. Ironically though due to ice occupying a larger volume than water the sea level would be slightly higher if the icebergs didn't melt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


from you

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Wow you're really grasping at straws aren't you? Do you think that iceberg broke off in the middle of the Antarctic and teleported itself to the ocean? No they were ice sheets that were already afloat therefore Archimedes principle had already "kicked in."



If followed your train of thought the whole way through. I even put up with you claiming I was bobbing and weaving while that was exactly what you were doing. I don't believe there was any miscommunication and am convinced at this point you have been repeatedly intellectually dishonest. Including now by backtracking. My point has been made and I see you never had any interest in an honest conversation.

I have better things to do.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yep I still agree with those statements because that is exactly what I said. The funny part is I did actually follow your train of thought and conceded to part of your claim. You were oblivious to my train of thought and steadfastly denied everything I said. And my train of thought is 100% completely accurate.


I will sum it up for you one last time then I have better things to do also. Iceberg b15 broke off from the ice shelf both of those items float on water by definition.

Archimedes law on volume was in effect because the ice shelf was floating on water. I even agreed with you that Archimedes Law of volume would would exert a greater effect when the iceberg broke off from the shelf. Yet you failed to recognize that it was also already in effect before iceberg b15 broke off.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

If I were a benevolent dictator I would convert the Sahara desert into a gigantic solar cells power plant, I would part the resulting electricity equally to everyone on Earth & make it free (forcing the cessation of fossil fuel dependence), and I would build kilometer-high towers to house people & make vertical farms, thus freeing Earth's surface for the reforestation of deforested areas, and consequently trigger the re-absorbtion of atmospheric CO2 by the expanding forests.

Thanks for asking.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
We should be less concerned about "saving the Earth" and more concerned about saving the human race. This planet has been through more hot/cold cycles in its billion year lifespan than we could even dream. There's nothing we can do to kill the Earth....however, we CAN kill off the human race. In the whole, we are a weak species. However, individuals can be quite resilient and overcome dramatic changes in the environment. I am sure humans will survive, but it might not be the fragile technology-dependent lifestyle we have built for ourselves.


Saving the Earth is saving the human race. Our number one problem is the demand for fresh water. 25% of the Earth's surface may be land, but only 5% is habitable (not desert, not ice tundra, not mountain, flat level enough for rivers and lakes) for human life.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Krakatoa
We should be less concerned about "saving the Earth" and more concerned about saving the human race. This planet has been through more hot/cold cycles in its billion year lifespan than we could even dream. There's nothing we can do to kill the Earth....however, we CAN kill off the human race. In the whole, we are a weak species. However, individuals can be quite resilient and overcome dramatic changes in the environment. I am sure humans will survive, but it might not be the fragile technology-dependent lifestyle we have built for ourselves.


Saving the Earth is saving the human race. Our number one problem is the demand for fresh water. 25% of the Earth's surface may be land, but only 5% is habitable (not desert, not ice tundra, not mountain, flat level enough for rivers and lakes) for human life.

I beg to differ. If we destroy the environment to the point the human race can no longer survive, then, that leaves a vacant slot for some other life-form to evolve into that slot. Through it all, the planet, Earth (or whatever the net dominant life-form calls it) will persevere. It will still spin on its axis, it will still revolve around the sun, etc...

There is nothing we (at the present time with present technology) could do to stop that. Therefore, "saving the Earth" is an attempt at futility. Saving humanity,now there is a worthwhile and possible task.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad Fill a glass half full of ice. Fill remainder with water until there is a meniscus. Let ice melt. Observe water level.


edit on 23-5-2015 by kenzohattori69 because: missing words



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join