Does anyone remember reading about the canadian artic ice shelf that broke off about 2 weeks ago? Never know what was underneath all that ice and seeing that this huge sheet of ice thats been there for thousands of years suddenly breaks off...something is going on. Must have been some gaseous releases under the ice once it flowed.

I have another theory on the why's of methane release...

Picture the Earth (the oblate spheroid that it is albeit slightly) as a balloon and the weight of ancient arctic and antarctic ice acting like 2 of your hands on either of the "poles" of this fictious sphere shaped balloon with slight downward pressure causing the oblate spheroid shape of earth.

Now imagine the melting ice at the poles, somewhat tantamount to releasing the pressure of your 2 hands off the balloon and redistributing that waters weight more equally. The "Earth" thats between your 2 hands starts to take a bit of a shape heading toward a true sphere instead of an oblate spheroid ... but WHAT exactly does that shape change amount to? Reshifting of tectonic plates? Opening fissures along those faults releasing through vents gasses that otherwise wouldnt have been released if the original weight of the ice kept it in "shape"?

It may just be possible that the weight of that ancient ice has kept Earth in a particular shape for all these years, and now that it's melting, things are shifting into place...just a thought....any other thoughts?


AB1

I thought that the centrificial force of the earth rotating caused the majority of the shape deformation. Also, I know some of you like this methane theory but do you think that is what's causing the the majority of these bird deaths? On a much smaller scale, sure it is possible that birds could die from a lack of oxygen (they wouldn't die from methane but from lack of oxygen) do to methane. But there's really no way it could account for a majority of these events, it doesn't seem possible.

It might help to know what kind of concentation is needed to sufficate a bird, because I would think the concentration would have to be pretty high. And you'd think that the methane would disipate enough over time that it wouldn't be that harmful.

Again, I need to reiterate that ice is LIGHTER than liquid water!! The absence of Ice will only increase the weight on the ground beneath where it was.

To put this all into perspective, if the icecaps completely melted, the weight exerted directly onto the poles would rise as a direct result of all of the more dense liquid water flowing in to fill in the vast space that the ice once held.

A good experimental study on this is to get a glass, and fill it with water. Add 6 icecubes, and measure the height of the water in the glass. Leave the ice to melt completely, and then take another measurement. Pay special attention to the height change of the water. I think you'll be quite surprised.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
Again, I need to reiterate that ice is LIGHTER than liquid water!! The absence of Ice will only increase the weight on the ground beneath where it was.

To put this all into perspective, if the icecaps completely melted, the weight exerted directly onto the poles would rise as a direct result of all of the more dense liquid water flowing in to fill in the vast space that the ice once held.

A good experimental study on this is to get a glass, and fill it with water. Add 6 icecubes, and measure the height of the water in the glass. Leave the ice to melt completely, and then take another measurement. Pay special attention to the height change of the water. I think you'll be quite surprised.

TheBorg

I always thought it was displacement, an ice berg will displace the same weight in volume of water that it actually displaces whilst floating. There is a boyancy effect happening here but the same weight of the Ice Berg is displaced within the ocean it occupies.

Hence there would be no extra exertion of forces anywhere, I could be wrong but if you got the glass with the icecube frozen and weighed it then let it melt I would bet Tasmania the weight would remain unchanged

Originally posted by mazzroth
I always thought it was displacement, an ice berg will displace the same weight in volume of water that it actually displaces whilst floating. There is a boyancy effect happening here but the same weight of the Ice Berg is displaced within the ocean it occupies.

Hence there would be no extra exertion of forces anywhere, I could be wrong but if you got the glass with the icecube frozen and weighed it then let it melt I would bet Tasmania the weight would remain unchanged

You're comparing a glass with an ocean. There is no comparison there. The ocean's water will flow in to replace the void created by the melting ice, increasing the weight of the area locally, and not changing the local ocean level. Whereas, with the glass, there is no more water to replace the melted ice. The height of the water is what's important here, as the change will not occur on such a large scale in the ocean. There's more dense material above that location once the ice melts than was there when the ice was there is what I'm trying to get at here.

Ice is lighter than water, as I've stated before, otherwise it would sink. If it were to sink, we'd be in for a LOT more trouble than just global warming I'm afraid.

Originally posted by TheBorg
Again, I need to reiterate that ice is LIGHTER than liquid water!! The absence of Ice will only increase the weight on the ground beneath where it was.
TheBorg

Ice displaces exactly as much water as it's liquid counter-part does. The fact still remains, however, that the weight of THAT ancient ice at the poles, after melting, would re-distribute itself throught the oceans, and no longer be ANY weight (ice or liquid) at the poles any longer.

AB1

either way you look at it the weight on the poles is going to change and that is going to move land masses, wich spells bad news for the human race.

wierd story here

4 nights ago i ran out of tobacco, 1am, i was in my office (at home)
i went out to my car, and lying 10 feet to the rear was a dead owl.
i had a good look, and it was deffo an owl, the thickness of its neck was the 1st sign.

anyway, scared to touch it, incase i, well, died, i left it there, and drove off.
10 mins later, i returned, and it was gone.

so..
either it was asleep, or stunned, or someone had lifted it.

very wierd.


here in scotland there have been a few reports/gossiping of dead pigeons.
not seen many myself though.

true story by the way

i think this is the sign of the end times. wars, famines, diseases,floods,earthquakes and then the rock as an end all. this new commet heading for us, a new bright commet comming for us. it is a sign of the end times, it is comming and it has already started, by the sign of the birds. now all the weird and bad stuff will start happenning. watch, the sign of the birds was the tell tale of the end times is now and it started with the birds that fell from the sky.

Originally posted by littlebird
i think this is the sign of the end times. wars, famines, diseases,floods,earthquakes and then the rock as an end all. this new commet heading for us, a new bright commet comming for us. it is a sign of the end times, it is comming and it has already started, by the sign of the birds. now all the weird and bad stuff will start happenning. watch, the sign of the birds was the tell tale of the end times is now and it started with the birds that fell from the sky.

Narr settle mate, lets just see how it pans out. Humans have been saying from the days of swinging in the tree's "its the end of the world".

Originally posted by TheBorg
Again, I need to reiterate that ice is LIGHTER than liquid water!! The absence of Ice will only increase the weight on the ground beneath where it was.

To put this all into perspective, if the icecaps completely melted, the weight exerted directly onto the poles would rise as a direct result of all of the more dense liquid water flowing in to fill in the vast space that the ice once held.

A good experimental study on this is to get a glass, and fill it with water. Add 6 icecubes, and measure the height of the water in the glass. Leave the ice to melt completely, and then take another measurement. Pay special attention to the height change of the water. I think you'll be quite surprised.

TheBorg

TheBorg, you can't use this methodology to say that loss of ice will cause more weight to be added to the poles!

First of all, the ice goes waaay above sea level, in some places on antarctica a kilometer or more.
Now we keep in mind that ice weight is 0.9 kilos per liter. Water weight is 1 kilo per liter. This is how you get the saying that nine 10ths of an iceberg is underwater.

So in order to increase pressure to the level it was at when ice was present on landbase, say 1 kilometer thick ice, then you would need the sea level to rise 900 meters to replace that weight.

I posted this in another thread that was listed before somewhere, but this thread seems to be getting more attention..

I had thought about making a thread on this..
I live in South Florida, and on my breaks at work, I noticed last year and this year, over the winter months, all the birds flying in groups were all flying North.

I've also noticed mocking birds singing in the dead of night, usually around 1-3am, seagulls further inland than I'm used to seeing them, blackbirds and the smaller brown ones going crazy as well.

I had a friend who just moved back from Houston and said he witnessed tons of dead birds over there, everywhere.. He was sick most of the time over there and had a constant cough until the day he moved back here.

my 2cents

Originally posted by 732t497654
TheBorg, you can't use this methodology to say that loss of ice will cause more weight to be added to the poles!

First of all, the ice goes waaay above sea level, in some places on antarctica a kilometer or more.
Now we keep in mind that ice weight is 0.9 kilos per liter. Water weight is 1 kilo per liter. This is how you get the saying that nine 10ths of an iceberg is underwater.

So in order to increase pressure to the level it was at when ice was present on landbase, say 1 kilometer thick ice, then you would need the sea level to rise 900 meters to replace that weight.

Ya know what? I had forgotten all about the sheer amount of ice located above the waterline. That would indeed change things... I stand corrected.

TheBorg

You have voted TheBorg for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

I know its off topic but in the short time ive been a member as angryamerican iv'e never seen anybody admit to making a mistake. I solute you sir

Originally posted by angryamerican
I know its off topic but in the short time ive been a member as angryamerican iv'e never seen anybody admit to making a mistake. I solute you sir

While I'm flattered by the WATS vote, I'm by far not the only one that does so. It's a common thing around here. Some are just more subtle about how they admit it. Since I don't have time for subtlety, I just punch it straight out there. I know, from my tenure here, that the good ole SkepticOverlord himself (SO) and some of the other mods have done so as well.

Again, thank you. Keep an eye out, as you'll see it by many other members throughout your stay here. *bows*

TheBorg

P.S. As per topic, anymore news on dead birds? Or was it a geological phenomena as I suggested previously? Sounds to me like the deaths ceased immediately following the 8.2 quake that rattled the West Pacific a couple days ago.

TheBorg

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Now imagine the melting ice at the poles, somewhat tantamount to releasing the pressure of your 2 hands off the balloon and redistributing that waters weight more equally.

It may just be possible that the weight of that ancient ice has kept Earth in a particular shape for all these years, and now that it's melting, things are shifting into place...just a thought....any other thoughts?

The process you describe is called "isostasy" or isostatic rebound, and is a very real element of techtonic theory.

Sri Oracle