How AGW Theory defies physics

For decades "scientists" pushing for Carbon Taxes (which will only encourage governments to deal with more polluting corporations, since more CO2 will mean more tax income) and for population control have been citing the alleged "Rise of Sea Levels" as a proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming, also known as AGW - the THEORY that human activity is singlehandedly causing the rise of global temperature by 350 degrees a decade ago (believe it or not, a decade ago, an eminent scientist did predict that the Earth would become "Venus-like" in the years that came after).

The idea is simple, they say. Ice caps are melting! Yes that might happen between glaciation periods. But no matter that, ice caps are melting and now that's your fault. And when ice melts, it becomes water right? So they show you this trend in which there's apparently sea levels rising, as a result of ice caps melting. Don't forget polar bears are dying of hunger because of cows. You have your notebook with you right? This is basic stuff you learn at university. Bears are dying of hunger because, otherwise, in nature, they are supposed to die from parachute opening failure.

But yeah, anyways. Ice cap melts = rise of sea levels. They have graphs you can't verify to prove it. Well you could verify it, if you happened to live on the ocean and have an absurdly long ruler and several hundred years to spare looking at the ruler.

The idea makes sense... except for a tiny, really tiny minuscule trivial detail. It's no biggie really, it's just that, well, when ice melts in a body of water, the level of the water remains the same. Oops.

Ever put ice cubes in your glass of water? When you do, does the water spill over when the ice finishes melting? No. Something else you are supposed to learn at university. But that's in a different class - that's in physics, on the topic of the phases of matter. Yes, water is one of the rare matter whose molecules decrease in density as it becomes solid. Liquid water is actually more dense than solid water - hence, that's why ice floats. As water melts from ice to liquid, the volume it occupies remains the same - in fact, liquide water would be slightly more compact than ice.

Sea levels are not supposed to rise when ice melts.

Of course, of course, I am oversimplifying it, Warmers might say. "John", they'll say. "John, first please allow me to say I am not fond of you, because if you oppose any aspect of AGW, then that automatically means you are a Catholic republican shill paid by Exxon". That's okay, my dear Warmer. I understand the need to stereotype people into boxes so to ease any personal cognitive dissonance. "John", they'll add. "John, this ice that's melting, it's from glaciers. It's like, there's this glass of water - the sea - and then there's this other glass, and this other glass is filled with melting ice. Remember, John, ice is melting ice is melting ice is melting. You saw the footage, right? That perfectly square iceberg that was cut out from Antarctica. This ice is melting, and adding to the glass that represents the sea."

Except that that's not true. Ice is heavy. Because ice is so bloody heavy, it in fact has pushed the actual ground of Antarctica way below the sea level. The ice cap is directly immersed in the ocean all around. As a proof, people can cut away icebergs and they'll just float into the ocean. Antarctica's ground is not somehow separating the ice cap from the ocean, in a way that your finger could be holding the ice cube above your glass of water. If that was the case, then yeah, the melting ice cube would make the water in the glass underneath rise. But that's not the case. The ice cube is immersed in the water, occupying volume in the water; your finger would be underwater and the ice cube poking out. They are in the same glass - they are in the same system. When the ice melts, it's not supposed to make the water in your glass rise. That's not how water works, you learn that in physics.

So please, please, please people. Please stop saying that sea levels are rising because of Antarctica melting. Sea level rising because of continental rebound or because of high altitude glaciers? Now that might be realistic. But because of Antarctica melting? That's not how water works. Pour yourself a drink, add yourself a few cubes, and check the basic physics for yourself.

a reply to: swanne

Not a supporter of AGW. Do humans have an effect, sure, but it's almost negligible when everything is taken into consideration. Climate change has so many variables at play that to think we are such a huge cause is the arrogance of human kind.

On that note, ice on land, melting into the oceans can have an effect on sea levels. If the oceans are actually heating up, well that would cause expansion of the molecules and possible sea level rise.

Don't forget though, that if there is more moisture in the air, that can have a cooling effect. Clouds are white at the tops and reflect light, causing ice to form in other places. And don't even talk about the suns influence, weaking magnetic field allowing more through, or our position in the galactic realm. Cause there is no way that can have any major effects on our invincible spec in space /sarc.

a reply to: Irikash

Agreed. I too would think that heating water would cause its density to lower and therefore to expand.

Ice is not only floating in the Oceans.

Greenland? Donald tried to buy it, remember? Is he a masked Climate Changer?

Antarctica? Not floating, too.


Numbers?
Okay.

First, the facts:
* The area of water on Earth is about 361,200,000 km².
* 1 melted km³ of ice produces 0.9 km³ water. (And weighs about 1GT, one gigaton).
* 1 km³ of melted ice rises the level of the oceans of about 0.0025 mm.
* Greenland Factsheet There is about 2,600,000 km³ of ice on Greenland.

Calculate for yourself, experts did so already and produce numbers between 6.7 and 7.2 m rising in oceans levels from Greenlands ice alone. Antarctica has a lot more.


Oh, and right now, there are 2 km³ of ice already melting in Greenland. Per day.


But, if you do not like clean water and air, keep poluting.

checking in to watch the show. I miss these climate change banters.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Sure, I LOVE polluting.

I am not tired of the stupid smog in Montreal that's affecting my breathing and my health. Noooo, because I dare to point out that 1km3 of ice gives 0.9km3 of water (read that again!), this MUST mean I am actively trying to encourage people to pollute more and to throw their stupid thrashes in the ocean and to kill all the life forms Mother Earth has to offer.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

How can you keep a straight face, when you yourself say that 1km3 of ice gives 0.9km3 of water (which is a smaller volume), and then, in the same breath, say that this rises sea level?

a reply to: swanne

I think he meant that..1 km3 of ice that is above ground, when melted will yield 0.9 km3 of water to the body.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Oh! Now that would make a little more sense.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Off topic, I know, but I absolutely love your signature, lol

a reply to: swanne

I rarely get any positive feedback these days, so thank you even if it is for a copy/pasted/stolen line from book

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Hehe, what novel is it from

getting back on track...

Hypo situation:

If you were to somehow magically suddenly remove all the ice from Greenland, where only land would remain, would this land "rise" due to removal of all that weight ? Key word is "suddenly".

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Yes, actually it's called Continental Rebound I think.

Sounds like a workout tutorial video but it actually is a geological principle.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Yes, actually it's called Continental Rebound I think.

Sounds like a workout tutorial video but it actually is a geological principle.

a reply to: swanne

well to me that makes sense. Doesnt it then stand to reason that the land on which ice resides has already risen the water by simply weighing down on the ground itself. If the ice melts, it would add to overall water quantity, but the ground would rise to compensate for the offset. You would essentially end-up on "same level" in respect to water level. Am I talking crap ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: swanne

I think he meant that..1 km3 of ice that is above ground, when melted will yield 0.9 km3 of water to the body.

This is the part that most people seem to miss. John Stewart had a great visual to explain it from a few years back, but I cant find the clip.

a reply to: swanne

I am gonna start to say that I do think CO2 being the "dangerous gas" is "fake" Science (greatly over exaggerated).

I have read some AGW theory. Humanity is every day heating up the oceans with Fission Nuclear Plants causing increased water vapor and increased temperature do make ice melt. If AGW is a objective true theory with basis of what is happening on earth, then the politicians and "scientist" would target this (heating of oceans) wasteful practice first. But that is big corporate interest.

We are making changes to the environment around us. Even moving material to build cities is changing the gravity on earth. This is a fact. It is what degree off change to the environment that is in question. Building wind mils for energy is changing the wind patterns.

The banking cartels own the Politicians, Media and "Scientist" and that leaves us bombarded by propaganda.

But this thread about rebound is not a good point against politicians AGW insane policies.

If you have melting water above land only part of landmass on earth will have any rebound effect from the Ice melting since only part of earth have ice above it. Even if Greenland rebound when the water melt that do not help the rest of Europe staying above water.

a reply to: Irikash

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, a quite potent one. Higher humid means more warming, NOT vice versa.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Irikash

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, a quite potent one. Higher humid means more warming, NOT vice versa.

In the AGW theory that depends on if the negative feedback (sunlight reflected away) is lower than the positive feedback (cloud/water vapor trapping heat) so your statement is a simplification of the theory.