Now That It Is Spring... "Arctic Is Melting! "

a reply to: ZakOlongapo

What are you questioning about basic knowledge??? The fact that water expands when it becomes ice and takes up GREATER volume than water so that ANY ice that melts in the sea will actually DECREASE sea levels not increase them???

Did you not realize that that was what he was referring to??? ALL north sea ice, hell, ALL the ICE in ALL the oceans in the world could melt and it would NEVER increase sea levels.

But since you have such great basic knowledge, you already knew that right???

Jaden

a reply to: 3danimator2014

I think you will find that basic physics will tell you that any water above the surface of the glass that melts into the glass will increase the amount of water in the glass. How can you not see this?

Another fine example of the level of scientific knowledge of the high priests of the church of warmingology...

Just wow!!!

a reply to: PeterMcFly

I lol, evidently does understand that the volume does not increase because your are not adding new material now if a glacier of ice came from the sky that's a different story.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: ZakOlongapo
a reply to: swanne

... sorry, just no doom here. but more doom climate BS.

if ever see level rise cos of the ice melting in north sea this year i will give You all i have, ok?

www.suspicious0bservers.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.suspicious0bservers.org...< br />
www.rtcc.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.rtcc.org... -sea-ice-reaches-record-high-as-arctic-hits-2014-minimum/

... there is much more, but i am lazy now.

sea level is not going to go up when ice in north sea is melting. do basic physics experimen(in some european schools it is elementary education)... put ice cube in to cap with some amout of water and wait till it melts... water level is not going to go up!
peace

I think you will find that basic physics will tell you that any water above the surface of the glass that melts into the glass will increase the amount of water in the glass. How can you not see this?

Uh, what?

The ice is also water. So the total amount of water in the glass is already in the glass - ice (water in solid state) + liquid water = total amount of water. You will not increase the amount of water by melting the ice because new matter does not magically appear from nothing. Try it.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Greven
The Dunning-Kruger effect shines on threads like this.

Those who have done no real world research will read a few pieces from the heartland institute and fox news and confidently conclude that man made climate change is a hoax to raise taxes.

Those of us who have actually studied this are often ridiculed and accused of being chicken littles because there are legitimate concerns about man's role with the changing climate.

Wait til next winter and the deniers will be claiming every snowstorm is proof global warming is a hoax.

How is that any different from the believers claiming that every heat wave is proof?

a reply to: Masterjaden
a reply to: PeterMcFly
a reply to: TechniXcality
a reply to: ketsuko

Sorry guys, but 3danimator2014 is technically correct. The ocean is not a cup of water.

You are forgetting to factor in surface tension and buoyancy along with sea ice being freshwater versus saltwater. This combined with ice floating in water makes melting ice increase the water level very, very slightly. It's very small, but it's there.

e: see here for example

In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Masterjaden
a reply to: PeterMcFly
a reply to: TechniXcality
a reply to: ketsuko

Sorry guys, but 3danimator2014 is technically correct. The ocean is not a cup of water.

You are forgetting to factor in surface tension and buoyancy along with sea ice being freshwater versus saltwater. This combined with ice floating in water makes melting ice increase the water level very, very slightly. It's very small, but it's there.

e: see here for example

In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

Just add salt to the ice,Duh!

a reply to: swanne

I'll quote all of your #1 point from article because it needs to be pointed out.

My bolding:

1. Changing your weather.

This is controversial, but there is growing scientific research backing the still-contested conclusion that changes to the Arctic are leading to changes in weather in the mid latitudes. The basic idea is that a warmer Arctic plays games with the jet stream, the stream of air high above us in the stratosphere that carries our weather and that is driven by temperature contrasts between the mid and high latitudes.

If the Arctic warms more quickly than the mid latitudes do, then the jet stream could slow down, the theory goes. It could develop a more elongated and loopier path, leading to a persistence of particular weather conditions - whether intense snow, intense heat, intense rain, or something else.

A recent study published in the journal Science found that a more wavy and elongated jet stream in the summer "has made weather more persistent and hence favored the occurrence of prolonged heat extremes".

The National Research Council in the US handles the controversy over this idea by simply stating that "some scientists" have suggested these changes to the jet stream are happening. For now, we'll simply have to watch closely as the debate over this idea continues.

The reason why there is controversy around this particular assumption made by some scientists is because it's way way too premature to make a claim that the meridional flow of the jetstream is going to become the norm.

As it stands right now, this is still categorized as "weather" and has not been observed over a long enough period of time to be able to toss it into the "climate trend" camp any time soon.



I really wish people would stop automatically believing everything they read just because it agrees with your viewpoint on the subject of AGW.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Damnit !!! You all got me here. I always thought the ocean was a cup of water and the moon a jaw breaker, surely the moons a jaw breaker at least let me keep that.

a reply to: Greven

And a 1 1/2" rise in sea level will put Florida underwater? I think not.

a reply to: ketsuko
What does Florida have to do with people not getting a basic part of physics right?

Further, I was apparently mistaken on what 3danimator was referring to, going instead off what you and others were saying that he wrote.

Here's what he wrote:

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I think you will find that basic physics will tell you that any water above the surface of the glass that melts into the glass will increase the amount of water in the glass. How can you not see this?

So, he was talking about land ice melting into the ocean, not sea ice already in the ocean.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ketsuko
What does Florida have to do with people not getting a basic part of physics right?

Further, I was apparently mistaken on what 3danimator was referring to, going instead off what you and others were saying that he wrote.

Here's what he wrote:

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I think you will find that basic physics will tell you that any water above the surface of the glass that melts into the glass will increase the amount of water in the glass. How can you not see this?

So, he was talking about land ice melting into the ocean, not sea ice already in the ocean.

How do you get ice to stay above the surface of the glass?Antigravity?

a reply to: Sunwolf
Given the analogy is a glass, I would say a spoon.

How about something else that skeptics might argue - that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources. Well, see this article:

There is really no way around it. Since the dawn of the industrial age, humans have taken carbon locked in organic material and released it into the atmosphere. That burning added huge volumes of carbon dioxide (in 2014, 44 billion tonnes) that all has highly negative carbon isotopic composition. Carbon dioxide goes up, the carbon isotopic composition goes down, all recoded in the ice at the poles.

And this:

Alas, here lies another talking point...

a reply to: Greven

Sorry guys, but 3danimator2014 is technically correct. The ocean is not a cup of water.

You are forgetting to factor in surface tension and buoyancy along with sea ice being freshwater versus saltwater.

Sorry guy, but 3danimator2014 SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT A GLASS OF WATER while arrogantly putting in its place another poster. See the following quote.

... that any water above the surface of the glass that melts into the glass will increase the amount of water in the glass. How can you not see this?

a reply to: Grimpachi

You can still make snowballs north of Toronto, Ontario LOL. And there is still ice on many of the lakes.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Greven
Sorry guy, but 3danimator2014 SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT A GLASS OF WATER while arrogantly putting in its place another poster. See the following quote.

Uh-huh. See this post.

I was going off of ketsuko's take on it, which was incorrect.

Water in the ocean is saltwater. Ice in the ocean is freshwater. Pretending that they're both freshwater is a flawed representation of things.

a reply to: Greven

True. The most important part of Arctic ice melting is the change in albedo (dark water vs white ice) and hence positive feedback to increase surface absorption of solar & greenhouse radiation.

That is a large effect which indirectly may raise sea level (by changing weather & climate and directly absorbing more heat) vs the small volume effect of melting fresh ice into salt water.

It is unquestionable that greenhouse-forced global warming (as compared to direct solar-forced global warming which is not happening at present) heats poles more than equatorial regions, and that change in relative temperature will substantially change global circulation patterns. There is already a conveyor of heat from equator to poles which is the central physical phenomeon of climate.

This debate bums me out, a lot.

I don't think it's really a fight between "climate change" and "no climate change", because loads of the "against" people do agree that the climate is changing, but argue that it's natural.

All these fights occur about "how much water will get added into the ocean" and "how much land will disappear" and crap.

IMO the actual issue is being largely ignored. Who gives a crap if humans cause the climate to change, or if dung beetles change it, or if Nibiru, the sun, or God himself changes it? What is most difficult to deny is that if the climate does change, then the prevalence of certain species of animals, the growth patterns of certain plants, and the availability of fresh water will change with it.

If we can all just agree on that, we can just forget about blaming someone, and instead focus on the question of, "If climate is changing or does change, what can we do to ensure adequate water and food for the human population?"

I think that if sustainable food and clean water was ensured for everyone, then not only would climate change matter less, but the methods used to ensure these things would probably also be eco-friendly, thus satisfying those who say that humans are to blame for global warming.

We are all on the same side, because we all eat and we all drink water. And all that really matters is that we are able to keep doing that.

a reply to: TheBlackTiger

You are right.

Quite wise words indeed right there.

Stop pollution, it's no good anyway. Stop destroying nature. Help erase resources inequality. Fight for clean energy.

a reply to: TheBlackTiger

I don't think you are allowing for the potential unforeseen circumstance of a rapid change in the climate.

Some species will thrive while others that could not adapt fast enough may disappear. Something seemingly insignificant can have extreme consequences to the whole. Even a significant decrease in some organisms would be disastrous to the world.

For some of those losses we could adapt like how China has adapted to the loss of pollinator species. They venture out and pollinate crops by hand(awesome job. If Ocean plankton were to take a huge dive then I don't think there would be anything we could do to maintain the ecosystem and it has decreased somewhat in areas which the effects are being felt.

The warming and cooling of past climate shifts happened over long periods of time which allowed species to adapt. As far a I know all the past rapid changes have been labeled as mass extinction level events. So on top of concerns like rising oceans and land loss the odds of a detrimental unforeseen happening are also high.