> > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> > > > > > > > Every year, 35 billion tonnes of ice break free of the Greenland ice > > > > > > > > sheet here.
> > > > > > > > Only the mammoth glaciers of Antarctica can compare.
> > > > > > > > The Isbrae – also known as Sermeq Kujalleq – moves at 40m a day.
> > > > > > > > For glaciers, this is pretty quick.
> > > > > > > > Glaciers have always made their way to the sea.
> > > > > > > > Snow falls on the vast Greenland ice sheet – this is by far the > > > > > > > > world’s biggest island – and the weight pushes out the ice at the > > > > > > > > edges.
> > > > > > > > But the remarkable thing about the Jakobshavn Isbrae – and nearly all > > > > > > > > of Greenland’s glaciers, and most of the glaciers in the world – is > > > > > > > > how fast those outward waves are flowing now.
> > > > > > > > In 2002, when researchers measured the Jakobshavn Isbrae, which drains > > > > > > > > 6.5 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, it was moving only half as > > > > > > > > quickly as it is today, and pouring only half the present volume of > > > > > > > > ice into the fjord.
> > > > > > > > The earliest known maps of this glacier date from the 1850s, but > > > > > > > > observations of it have intensified since the 1950s.
> > > > > > > > They track the marked acceleration of the ice over recent decades, and > > > > > > > > show its speed increasing dramatically in the past few years.
> > > > > > > > The Hellheim glacier, draining 4 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, > > > > > > > > tells a similar story.
> > > > > > > > Its speed increased from 8km a year in 2000 to 11km a year in 2005, > > > > > > > > and has since accelerated.
> > > > > > > > The reason the glaciers are speeding up is simple:
> > > > > > > > Greenland is getting warmer.
> > > > > > > > Jacqueline McGlade, director of the European Environment Agency, says: > > > > > > > > “The amount of ice that is being lost is far more than we thought. > > > > > > > > Greenland is warming faster than the computer models predicted, and > > > > > > > > that is a worry.”
> > > > > > > > The Arctic has warmed at three times the rate of the rest of the world > > > > > > > > in the past 100 years, and temperatures continue to rise.
> > > > > > > > Ola Johannessen, chief of Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote > > > > > > > > Sensing Centre, has worked on ice for more than 30 years.
> > > > > > > > He has never seen anything like the current situation.
> > > > > > > > “There is no doubt that what we are seeing is the result of global > > > > > > > > warming. The glaciers are moving faster. Ice is being lost from the > > > > > > > > Greenland ice sheet, and that will raise sea levels.”
> > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> > > > > > > > The tale the ice cores tell is full of foreboding.
> > > > > > > > Climate changes of the past have not been slow, gradual increases in > > > > > > > > temperature.
> > > > > > > > Rather, they have been abrupt – sudden and steep warmings and > > > > > > > > coolings, sometimes over a matter of decades.
> > > > > > > > This has led researchers to suggest that certain feedback loops, or > > > > > > > > tipping points, exist in the earth’s climate system – points at which > > > > > > > > the warming or cooling becomes self-reinforcing and much more rapid.
> > > > > > > > Some feedback effects are already at work in Greenland.
> > > > > > > > Stand on top of a glacier, far from where the bergs calve with loud > > > > > > > > cracks, and you hear a strange background murmur, a ceaseless > > > > > > > > whispering that appears to have no source.
> > > > > > > > This is the sound of meltwater rushing down through fissures in the > > > > > > > > ice.
> > > > > > > > When it reaches the bottom, the water lubricates the flow of the ice > > > > > > > > over the rocks beneath, speeding the glaciers on their way.
> > > > > > > > The more meltwater, the more lubrication and the faster the ice moves.
> > > > > > > > Other tipping points might include the rapid disappearance of the > > > > > > > > Amazon rainforest, which could be caused by drought.
> > > > > > > > If that happened, all the carbon the forests absorb would be released, > > > > > > > > and global warming would accelerate.
> > > > > > > > If temperatures rose more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels, > > > > > > > > catastrophe would ensue, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on > > > > > > > > Climate Change.
> > > > > > > > More than one-third of the world’s species would disappear; hundreds > > > > > > > > of millions of people would face famine; floods and storms would whip > > > > > > > > rich and poor countries alike.
> > > > > > > > Kyoto was greeted as a triumph in 1997 when it was signed, but > > > > > > > > scarcely was the ink dry than the whole project collapsed.
> > > > > > > > It became clear the US Congress would never ratify it.
> > > > > > > > The real threat of climate change is not that the ice will melt > > > > > > > > (though when it does, we are in trouble because the departure of > > > > > > > > reflective ice leaves dark sea that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, > > > > > > > > increasing the rate of global warming in another feedback loop).
> > > > > > > > The real disruptions of climate change will be felt far from here:
> > > > > > > > in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heat will become unbearable;
> > > > > > > > in south-east Asia, where rising sea levels will claim more and more > > > > > > > > land and typhoons will destroy towns and villages;
> > > > > > > > in southern Europe, where drought will render the land unsuitable for > > > > > > > > agriculture.
> > > > > > > > The biggest threat of all is to the world’s social and political > > > > > > > > stability – the famines, droughts, floods and storms of a warming > > > > > > > > world could cause prolonged conflict, mass migration on a scale we > > > > > > > > shudder to imagine, and a counter-reaction to that migration from the > > > > > > > > lucky northern countries.
> > > > > > > > It’s just that Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see > > > > > > > > the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and > > > > > > > > their effects on the natural world.
> > > > > Wow, they can grow potatoes now. Will the horrors of global warming > > > > > ever cease? Let's spend trillions of dollars to stop this horrible > > > > > disaster.
> > > > It doesn't alter the fact that you implicitly posted mis-information.
> > > Not that you can expect a serious response from anyone posting under a > > > handle like "Monkey Clumps" but first rightards deny AGW or at least > > > treat it with a great deal of levity and when presented with > > > irrefutable evidence it exists they then suggest it's a good thing.
> > Which is entirely consistent. If the greentards want us all to spend > > untold amounts of money attempting to cut carbon emissions, at the > > minimum they need to demonstrate 4 things.
> > 1. Global warming is actually happening.
> Already proven beyong any doubt. Only shills, creationists and other > wackadoodles dispute that.
> > 2. The warming is due to human CO2 emissions and not natural cycles.
> Already proven beyong any doubt. Only shills, creationists and other > wackadoodles dispute that.
> > 3. Warming can be controlled by cutting carbon emissions
> Already proven beyong any doubt. Only shills, creationists and other
Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single >>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice >>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change. >> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
Dittoheads don't do science.
>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an >> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show >> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or >> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water >> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills >> over.
>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >> the land, of course.
> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the glass > first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% increase in total oceanic volume. But it doesn't hurt half so much as the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if glacial melting of land ice speeds up.
Martin Brown wrote: > Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >> "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single >>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice >>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
> Dittoheads don't do science.
>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an >>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show >>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or >>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water >>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills >>> over.
>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >>> the land, of course.
>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the glass >> first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows > and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold > *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice > cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold > fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other > temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% > increase in total oceanic volume. But it doesn't hurt half so much as > the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers > melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if > glacial melting of land ice speeds up.
The problem, as usual, lies in a tendency to exaggerate - on both sides. "The most recent example of this sequence of claim and counter-claim focused on the Greenland ice sheet. The melting of ice around south-east Greenland accelerated in the early part of this decade, leading to reports that scientists had underestimated the speed of warming in this region. Recent measurements, reported in Science magazine last week[1], show that the speed-up has stopped across the region. This has been picked up on the climate sceptics' websites. Again, natural variability has been ignored in order to support a particular point of view, with climate change advocates leaping on the acceleration to further their cause and the climate change sceptics now using the slowing down to their own benefit. Neither group is right and all that is achieved is greater confusion among the public. What is true is that there will always be natural variability in the amount of ice around Greenland and that as our climate continues to warm, the long-term reduction in the ice sheet is inevitable." - Dr Vicky Pope, Met Office Head of Climate Change.
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: > Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >> "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single >>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice >>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
> Dittoheads don't do science.
>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an >>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show >>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or >>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water >>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills >>> over.
>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >>> the land, of course.
>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the >> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows > and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold > *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice > cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold > fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other > temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% > increase in total oceanic volume.
Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
> But it doesn't hurt half so much as > the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers > melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if > glacial melting of land ice speeds up.
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: > > Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > >> "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> >>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single > >>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice > >>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
> >>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
> > Dittoheads don't do science.
> >>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an > >>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show > >>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or > >>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water > >>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills > >>> over.
> >>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto > >>> the land, of course.
> >> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
> >> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the > >> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
> > You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows > > and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold > > *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
> > The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice > > cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold > > fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other > > temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
> > So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% > > increase in total oceanic volume.
> Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try > dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
It must be obvious to all but the most disingenuous denialist that Martin has merely expressed himself badly. I saw immediately what he meant by 3% and would not have noticed his odd-wording until serial quibbler Bilbo jumped on it.
> > But it doesn't hurt half so much as > > the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers > > melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if > > glacial melting of land ice speeds up.
> On Nov 1, 9:42 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> > > > > > > > > Every year, 35 billion tonnes of ice break free of the Greenland ice > > > > > > > > > sheet here.
> > > > > > > > > Only the mammoth glaciers of Antarctica can compare.
> > > > > > > > > The Isbrae – also known as Sermeq Kujalleq – moves at 40m a day.
> > > > > > > > > For glaciers, this is pretty quick.
> > > > > > > > > Glaciers have always made their way to the sea.
> > > > > > > > > Snow falls on the vast Greenland ice sheet – this is by far the > > > > > > > > > world’s biggest island – and the weight pushes out the ice at the > > > > > > > > > edges.
> > > > > > > > > But the remarkable thing about the Jakobshavn Isbrae – and nearly all > > > > > > > > > of Greenland’s glaciers, and most of the glaciers in the world – is > > > > > > > > > how fast those outward waves are flowing now.
> > > > > > > > > In 2002, when researchers measured the Jakobshavn Isbrae, which drains > > > > > > > > > 6.5 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, it was moving only half as > > > > > > > > > quickly as it is today, and pouring only half the present volume of > > > > > > > > > ice into the fjord.
> > > > > > > > > The earliest known maps of this glacier date from the 1850s, but > > > > > > > > > observations of it have intensified since the 1950s.
> > > > > > > > > They track the marked acceleration of the ice over recent decades, and > > > > > > > > > show its speed increasing dramatically in the past few years.
> > > > > > > > > The Hellheim glacier, draining 4 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, > > > > > > > > > tells a similar story.
> > > > > > > > > Its speed increased from 8km a year in 2000 to 11km a year in 2005, > > > > > > > > > and has since accelerated.
> > > > > > > > > The reason the glaciers are speeding up is simple:
> > > > > > > > > Greenland is getting warmer.
> > > > > > > > > Jacqueline McGlade, director of the European Environment Agency, says: > > > > > > > > > “The amount of ice that is being lost is far more than we thought. > > > > > > > > > Greenland is warming faster than the computer models predicted, and > > > > > > > > > that is a worry.”
> > > > > > > > > The Arctic has warmed at three times the rate of the rest of the world > > > > > > > > > in the past 100 years, and temperatures continue to rise.
> > > > > > > > > Ola Johannessen, chief of Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote > > > > > > > > > Sensing Centre, has worked on ice for more than 30 years.
> > > > > > > > > He has never seen anything like the current situation.
> > > > > > > > > “There is no doubt that what we are seeing is the result of global > > > > > > > > > warming. The glaciers are moving faster. Ice is being lost from the > > > > > > > > > Greenland ice sheet, and that will raise sea levels.”
> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> > > > > > > > > The tale the ice cores tell is full of foreboding.
> > > > > > > > > Climate changes of the past have not been slow, gradual increases in > > > > > > > > > temperature.
> > > > > > > > > Rather, they have been abrupt – sudden and steep warmings and > > > > > > > > > coolings, sometimes over a matter of decades.
> > > > > > > > > This has led researchers to suggest that certain feedback loops, or > > > > > > > > > tipping points, exist in the earth’s climate system – points at which > > > > > > > > > the warming or cooling becomes self-reinforcing and much more rapid.
> > > > > > > > > Some feedback effects are already at work in Greenland.
> > > > > > > > > Stand on top of a glacier, far from where the bergs calve with loud > > > > > > > > > cracks, and you hear a strange background murmur, a ceaseless > > > > > > > > > whispering that appears to have no source.
> > > > > > > > > This is the sound of meltwater rushing down through fissures in the > > > > > > > > > ice.
> > > > > > > > > When it reaches the bottom, the water lubricates the flow of the ice > > > > > > > > > over the rocks beneath, speeding the glaciers on their way.
> > > > > > > > > The more meltwater, the more lubrication and the faster the ice moves.
> > > > > > > > > Other tipping points might include the rapid disappearance of the > > > > > > > > > Amazon rainforest, which could be caused by drought.
> > > > > > > > > If that happened, all the carbon the forests absorb would be released, > > > > > > > > > and global warming would accelerate.
> > > > > > > > > If temperatures rose more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels, > > > > > > > > > catastrophe would ensue, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on > > > > > > > > > Climate Change.
> > > > > > > > > More than one-third of the world’s species would disappear; hundreds > > > > > > > > > of millions of people would face famine; floods and storms would whip > > > > > > > > > rich and poor countries alike.
> > > > > > > > > Kyoto was greeted as a triumph in 1997 when it was signed, but > > > > > > > > > scarcely was the ink dry than the whole project collapsed.
> > > > > > > > > It became clear the US Congress would never ratify it.
> > > > > > > > > The real threat of climate change is not that the ice will melt > > > > > > > > > (though when it does, we are in trouble because the departure of > > > > > > > > > reflective ice leaves dark sea that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, > > > > > > > > > increasing the rate of global warming in another feedback loop).
> > > > > > > > > The real disruptions of climate change will be felt far from here:
> > > > > > > > > in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heat will become unbearable;
> > > > > > > > > in south-east Asia, where rising sea levels will claim more and more > > > > > > > > > land and typhoons will destroy towns and villages;
> > > > > > > > > in southern Europe, where drought will render the land unsuitable for > > > > > > > > > agriculture.
> > > > > > > > > The biggest threat of all is to the world’s social and political > > > > > > > > > stability – the famines, droughts, floods and storms of a warming > > > > > > > > > world could cause prolonged conflict, mass migration on a scale we > > > > > > > > > shudder to imagine, and a counter-reaction to that migration from the > > > > > > > > > lucky northern countries.
> > > > > > > > > It’s just that Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see > > > > > > > > > the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and > > > > > > > > > their effects on the natural world.
> > > > > > Wow, they can grow potatoes now. Will the horrors of global warming > > > > > > ever cease? Let's spend trillions of dollars to stop this horrible > > > > > > disaster.
> > > > > It doesn't alter the fact that you implicitly posted mis-information.
> > > > Not that you can expect a serious response from anyone posting under a > > > > handle like "Monkey Clumps" but first rightards deny AGW or at least > > > > treat it with a great deal of levity and when presented with > > > > irrefutable evidence it exists they then suggest it's a good thing.
> > > Which is entirely consistent. If the greentards want us all to spend > > > untold amounts of money attempting to cut carbon emissions, at the > > > minimum they need to demonstrate 4 things.
> > > 1. Global warming is actually happening.
> > Already proven beyong any doubt. Only shills, creationists and other > > wackadoodles
<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote: >On Nov 2, 8:58 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 1, 9:42 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so >> > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
>> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long >> > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future >> > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
>> > > > > > > > > Every year, 35 billion tonnes of ice break free of the Greenland ice >> > > > > > > > > sheet here.
>> > > > > > > > > Only the mammoth glaciers of Antarctica can compare.
>> > > > > > > > > The Isbrae – also known as Sermeq Kujalleq – moves at 40m a day.
>> > > > > > > > > For glaciers, this is pretty quick.
>> > > > > > > > > Glaciers have always made their way to the sea.
>> > > > > > > > > Snow falls on the vast Greenland ice sheet – this is by far the >> > > > > > > > > world’s biggest island – and the weight pushes out the ice at the >> > > > > > > > > edges.
>> > > > > > > > > But the remarkable thing about the Jakobshavn Isbrae – and nearly all >> > > > > > > > > of Greenland’s glaciers, and most of the glaciers in the world – is >> > > > > > > > > how fast those outward waves are flowing now.
>> > > > > > > > > In 2002, when researchers measured the Jakobshavn Isbrae, which drains >> > > > > > > > > 6.5 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, it was moving only half as >> > > > > > > > > quickly as it is today, and pouring only half the present volume of >> > > > > > > > > ice into the fjord.
>> > > > > > > > > The earliest known maps of this glacier date from the 1850s, but >> > > > > > > > > observations of it have intensified since the 1950s.
>> > > > > > > > > They track the marked acceleration of the ice over recent decades, and >> > > > > > > > > show its speed increasing dramatically in the past few years.
>> > > > > > > > > The Hellheim glacier, draining 4 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, >> > > > > > > > > tells a similar story.
>> > > > > > > > > Its speed increased from 8km a year in 2000 to 11km a year in 2005, >> > > > > > > > > and has since accelerated.
>> > > > > > > > > The reason the glaciers are speeding up is simple:
>> > > > > > > > > Greenland is getting warmer.
>> > > > > > > > > Jacqueline McGlade, director of the European Environment Agency, says: >> > > > > > > > > “The amount of ice that is being lost is far more than we thought. >> > > > > > > > > Greenland is warming faster than the computer models predicted, and >> > > > > > > > > that is a worry.”
>> > > > > > > > > The Arctic has warmed at three times the rate of the rest of the world >> > > > > > > > > in the past 100 years, and temperatures continue to rise.
>> > > > > > > > > Ola Johannessen, chief of Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote >> > > > > > > > > Sensing Centre, has worked on ice for more than 30 years.
>> > > > > > > > > He has never seen anything like the current situation.
>> > > > > > > > > “There is no doubt that what we are seeing is the result of global >> > > > > > > > > warming. The glaciers are moving faster. Ice is being lost from the >> > > > > > > > > Greenland ice sheet, and that will raise sea levels.”
>> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so >> > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
>> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long >> > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future >> > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
>> > > > > > > > > The tale the ice cores tell is full of foreboding.
>> > > > > > > > > Climate changes of the past have not been slow, gradual increases in >> > > > > > > > > temperature.
>> > > > > > > > > Rather, they have been abrupt – sudden and steep warmings and >> > > > > > > > > coolings, sometimes over a matter of decades.
>> > > > > > > > > This has led researchers to suggest that certain feedback loops, or >> > > > > > > > > tipping points, exist in the earth’s climate system – points at which >> > > > > > > > > the warming or cooling becomes self-reinforcing and much more rapid.
>> > > > > > > > > Some feedback effects are already at work in Greenland.
>> > > > > > > > > Stand on top of a glacier, far from where the bergs calve with loud >> > > > > > > > > cracks, and you hear a strange background murmur, a ceaseless >> > > > > > > > > whispering that appears to have no source.
>> > > > > > > > > This is the sound of meltwater rushing down through fissures in the >> > > > > > > > > ice.
>> > > > > > > > > When it reaches the bottom, the water lubricates the flow of the ice >> > > > > > > > > over the rocks beneath, speeding the glaciers on their way.
>> > > > > > > > > The more meltwater, the more lubrication and the faster the ice moves.
>> > > > > > > > > Other tipping points might include the rapid disappearance of the >> > > > > > > > > Amazon rainforest, which could be caused by drought.
>> > > > > > > > > If that happened, all the carbon the forests absorb would be released, >> > > > > > > > > and global warming would accelerate.
>> > > > > > > > > If temperatures rose more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels, >> > > > > > > > > catastrophe would ensue, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on >> > > > > > > > > Climate Change.
>> > > > > > > > > More than one-third of the world’s species would disappear; hundreds >> > > > > > > > > of millions of people would face famine; floods and storms would whip >> > > > > > > > > rich and poor countries alike.
>> > > > > > > > > Kyoto was greeted as a triumph in 1997 when it was signed, but >> > > > > > > > > scarcely was the ink dry than the whole project collapsed.
>> > > > > > > > > It became clear the US Congress would never ratify it.
>> > > > > > > > > The real threat of climate change is not that the ice will melt >> > > > > > > > > (though when it does, we are in trouble because the departure of >> > > > > > > > > reflective ice leaves dark sea that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, >> > > > > > > > > increasing the rate of global warming in another feedback loop).
>> > > > > > > > > The real disruptions of climate change will be felt far from here:
>> > > > > > > > > in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heat will become unbearable;
>> > > > > > > > > in south-east Asia, where rising sea levels will claim more and more >> > > > > > > > > land and typhoons will destroy towns and villages;
>> > > > > > > > > in southern Europe, where drought will render the land unsuitable for >> > > > > > > > > agriculture.
>> > > > > > > > > The biggest threat of all is to the world’s social and political >> > > > > > > > > stability – the famines, droughts, floods and storms of a warming >> > > > > > > > > world could cause prolonged conflict, mass migration on a scale we >> > > > > > > > > shudder to imagine, and a counter-reaction to that migration from the >> > > > > > > > > lucky northern countries.
>> > > > > > > > > It’s just that Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see >> > > > > > > > > the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and >> > > > > > > > > their effects on the natural world.
>> > > > > > Wow, they can grow potatoes now. Will the horrors of global warming >> > > > > > ever cease? Let's spend trillions of dollars to stop this horrible >> > > > > > disaster.
>> > > > > It doesn't alter the fact that you implicitly posted mis-information.
>> > > > Not that you can expect a serious response from anyone posting under a >> > > > handle like "Monkey Clumps" but first rightards deny AGW or at least >> > > > treat it with a great deal of levity and when presented with >> > > > irrefutable evidence it exists they then suggest it's a good thing.
>> > > Which is entirely consistent. If the greentards want us
Bill Ward wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >>> "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single >>>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice >>>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change. >>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs. >> Dittoheads don't do science. >>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an >>>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show >>>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or >>>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water >>>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills >>>> over.
>>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >>>> the land, of course. >>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
>>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the >>> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass. >> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows >> and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold >> *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
>> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice >> cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold >> fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other >> temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
>> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% >> increase in total oceanic volume.
> Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try > dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.
The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake the real world to match their delusional beliefs.
> On Nov 2, 7:31 am, "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 10:35 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> > > > > > > > Every year, 35 billion tonnes of ice break free of the Greenland ice > > > > > > > > sheet here.
> > > > > > > > Only the mammoth glaciers of Antarctica can compare.
> > > > > > > > The Isbrae – also known as Sermeq Kujalleq – moves at 40m a day.
> > > > > > > > For glaciers, this is pretty quick.
> > > > > > > > Glaciers have always made their way to the sea.
> > > > > > > > Snow falls on the vast Greenland ice sheet – this is by far the > > > > > > > > world’s biggest island – and the weight pushes out the ice at the > > > > > > > > edges.
> > > > > > > > But the remarkable thing about the Jakobshavn Isbrae – and nearly all > > > > > > > > of Greenland’s glaciers, and most of the glaciers in the world – is > > > > > > > > how fast those outward waves are flowing now.
> > > > > > > > In 2002, when researchers measured the Jakobshavn Isbrae, which drains > > > > > > > > 6.5 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, it was moving only half as > > > > > > > > quickly as it is today, and pouring only half the present volume of > > > > > > > > ice into the fjord.
> > > > > > > > The earliest known maps of this glacier date from the 1850s, but > > > > > > > > observations of it have intensified since the 1950s.
> > > > > > > > They track the marked acceleration of the ice over recent decades, and > > > > > > > > show its speed increasing dramatically in the past few years.
> > > > > > > > The Hellheim glacier, draining 4 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, > > > > > > > > tells a similar story.
> > > > > > > > Its speed increased from 8km a year in 2000 to 11km a year in 2005, > > > > > > > > and has since accelerated.
> > > > > > > > The reason the glaciers are speeding up is simple:
> > > > > > > > Greenland is getting warmer.
> > > > > > > > Jacqueline McGlade, director of the European Environment Agency, says: > > > > > > > > “The amount of ice that is being lost is far more than we thought. > > > > > > > > Greenland is warming faster than the computer models predicted, and > > > > > > > > that is a worry.”
> > > > > > > > The Arctic has warmed at three times the rate of the rest of the world > > > > > > > > in the past 100 years, and temperatures continue to rise.
> > > > > > > > Ola Johannessen, chief of Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote > > > > > > > > Sensing Centre, has worked on ice for more than 30 years.
> > > > > > > > He has never seen anything like the current situation.
> > > > > > > > “There is no doubt that what we are seeing is the result of global > > > > > > > > warming. The glaciers are moving faster. Ice is being lost from the > > > > > > > > Greenland ice sheet, and that will raise sea levels.”
> > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> > > > > > > > The tale the ice cores tell is full of foreboding.
> > > > > > > > Climate changes of the past have not been slow, gradual increases in > > > > > > > > temperature.
> > > > > > > > Rather, they have been abrupt – sudden and steep warmings and > > > > > > > > coolings, sometimes over a matter of decades.
> > > > > > > > This has led researchers to suggest that certain feedback loops, or > > > > > > > > tipping points, exist in the earth’s climate system – points at which > > > > > > > > the warming or cooling becomes self-reinforcing and much more rapid.
> > > > > > > > Some feedback effects are already at work in Greenland.
> > > > > > > > Stand on top of a glacier, far from where the bergs calve with loud > > > > > > > > cracks, and you hear a strange background murmur, a ceaseless > > > > > > > > whispering that appears to have no source.
> > > > > > > > This is the sound of meltwater rushing down through fissures in the > > > > > > > > ice.
> > > > > > > > When it reaches the bottom, the water lubricates the flow of the ice > > > > > > > > over the rocks beneath, speeding the glaciers on their way.
> > > > > > > > The more meltwater, the more lubrication and the faster the ice moves.
> > > > > > > > Other tipping points might include the rapid disappearance of the > > > > > > > > Amazon rainforest, which could be caused by drought.
> > > > > > > > If that happened, all the carbon the forests absorb would be released, > > > > > > > > and global warming would accelerate.
> > > > > > > > If temperatures rose more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels, > > > > > > > > catastrophe would ensue, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on > > > > > > > > Climate Change.
> > > > > > > > More than one-third of the world’s species would disappear; hundreds > > > > > > > > of millions of people would face famine; floods and storms would whip > > > > > > > > rich and poor countries alike.
> > > > > > > > Kyoto was greeted as a triumph in 1997 when it was signed, but > > > > > > > > scarcely was the ink dry than the whole project collapsed.
> > > > > > > > It became clear the US Congress would never ratify it.
> > > > > > > > The real threat of climate change is not that the ice will melt > > > > > > > > (though when it does, we are in trouble because the departure of > > > > > > > > reflective ice leaves dark sea that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, > > > > > > > > increasing the rate of global warming in another feedback loop).
> > > > > > > > The real disruptions of climate change will be felt far from here:
> > > > > > > > in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heat will become unbearable;
> > > > > > > > in south-east Asia, where rising sea levels will claim more and more > > > > > > > > land and typhoons will destroy towns and villages;
> > > > > > > > in southern Europe, where drought will render the land unsuitable for > > > > > > > > agriculture.
> > > > > > > > The biggest threat of all is to the world’s social and political > > > > > > > > stability – the famines, droughts, floods and storms of a warming > > > > > > > > world could cause prolonged conflict, mass migration on a scale we > > > > > > > > shudder to imagine, and a counter-reaction to that migration from the > > > > > > > > lucky northern countries.
> > > > > > > > It’s just that Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see > > > > > > > > the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and > > > > > > > > their effects on the natural world.
> > > > > Wow, they can grow potatoes now. Will the horrors of global warming > > > > > ever cease? Let's spend trillions of dollars to stop this horrible > > > > > disaster.
> > > > It doesn't alter the fact that you implicitly posted mis-information.
> > > Not that you can expect a serious response from anyone posting under a > > > handle like "Monkey Clumps"
> > I think we might deduce from the quality of his/her posts, that this > > is his/her real name.
> Based on the quality of your posts you might want to change your > handle to "Fucktard"
No. Like you Mr. Clumps, I'm happy to post under my real name.
> >>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> >>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single > >>>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice > >>>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change. > >>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs. > >>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an > >>>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show > >>>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or > >>>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water > >>>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills > >>>> over.
•• ROTFLMAO - If the glass is 'brim full' anything added will create over spill.
> >>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto > >>>> the land, of course.
There is no place where the oceans are "brim" full.
> >>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
> >>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the > >>> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
•• Just take a bottle of water, cap it and put in the freezer. Be prepared to clean up a mess of broken glass
> >> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows > >> and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold > >> *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
> >> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice > >> cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold > >> fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other > >> temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
> >> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% > >> increase in total oceanic volume.
> > Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try > > dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
> You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When > floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more > volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps > have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.
•• Well Mr Dittohead Brown, this is not a matter of misinformation or disinformation ... that is your style. If you saw AlGore's mockumentory flic there was a polar bear on a small ice pan. With the weight of the bear 90+% of the water was submerged
> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as > fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube > on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
> Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again > shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake > the real world to match their delusional beliefs.
•• ROTFLMAO Come back to the real world Mr 'Dittohead' Brown.
–– –– In real science the burden of proof is always on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one iota of valid data for global warming nor have they provided data that climate change is being effected by commerce and industry, and not by natural phenomena.
> >>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> >>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single > >>>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice > >>>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change. > >>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs. > >> Dittoheads don't do science. > >>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an > >>>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show > >>>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or > >>>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water > >>>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills > >>>> over.
> >>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto > >>>> the land, of course. > >>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
> >>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the > >>> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass. > >> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows > >> and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold > >> *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
> >> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice > >> cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold > >> fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other > >> temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
> >> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% > >> increase in total oceanic volume.
> > Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try > > dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
> You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When > floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more > volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps > have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.
> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as > fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube > on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
> Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again > shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake > the real world to match their delusional beliefs.
If you realise that Bilbo likely knows more than any of the other denialists here, you can understand the frustration of those of us who understand there is a problem.
> > >>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > >>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single > > >>>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice > > >>>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change. > > >>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs. > > >> Dittoheads don't do science. > > >>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an > > >>>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show > > >>>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or > > >>>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water > > >>>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills > > >>>> over.
> > >>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto > > >>>> the land, of course. > > >>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
> > >>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the > > >>> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass. > > >> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows > > >> and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold > > >> *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
> > >> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice > > >> cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold > > >> fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other > > >> temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
> > >> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% > > >> increase in total oceanic volume.
> > > Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try > > > dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
> > You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When > > floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more > > volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps > > have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.
> > The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as > > fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube > > on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
> > Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again > > shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake > > the real world to match their delusional beliefs.
> If you realise that Bilbo likely knows more than any of the other > denialists here, you can understand the frustration of those of us who > understand there is a problem.
•• Yeaaaah! YOU have a problem — a really really big one. You have zero proof of your thesis. None of those models can cope with reality and none of your so called scientists have ventured out into the cold.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >>>> "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one >>>>>> single millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. >>>>>> The ice contracts as it melts and so the level can't change. >>>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
>>> Dittoheads don't do science.
>>>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced >>>>> an amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will >>>>> show this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of >>>>> water. Or melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each >>>>> case the water that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact >>>>> water always spills over.
>>>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >>>>> the land, of course. >>>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
>>>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the >>>> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass. >>> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows >>> and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice >>> cold *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
>>> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice >>> cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold >>> fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other >>> temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
>>> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% >>> increase in total oceanic volume.
>> Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. >> Try dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
> You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When > floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more > volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps > have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.
How else do you interpret "total oceanic volume"? Words have meaning. Your statement infers the ocean would increase in volume by 3% when a cubic meter of ice melts. Is it really me that needs to "pay attention", or you?
> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as > fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube > on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.
> Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again > shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake > the real world to match their delusional beliefs.
> >> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > >> > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> >> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > >> > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > >> > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> >> > > > > > > > > Every year, 35 billion tonnes of ice break free of the Greenland ice > >> > > > > > > > > sheet here.
> >> > > > > > > > > Only the mammoth glaciers of Antarctica can compare.
> >> > > > > > > > > The Isbrae – also known as Sermeq Kujalleq – moves at 40m a day.
> >> > > > > > > > > For glaciers, this is pretty quick.
> >> > > > > > > > > Glaciers have always made their way to the sea.
> >> > > > > > > > > Snow falls on the vast Greenland ice sheet – this is by far the > >> > > > > > > > > world’s biggest island – and the weight pushes out the ice at the > >> > > > > > > > > edges.
> >> > > > > > > > > But the remarkable thing about the Jakobshavn Isbrae – and nearly all > >> > > > > > > > > of Greenland’s glaciers, and most of the glaciers in the world – is > >> > > > > > > > > how fast those outward waves are flowing now.
> >> > > > > > > > > In 2002, when researchers measured the Jakobshavn Isbrae, which drains > >> > > > > > > > > 6.5 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, it was moving only half as > >> > > > > > > > > quickly as it is today, and pouring only half the present volume of > >> > > > > > > > > ice into the fjord.
> >> > > > > > > > > The earliest known maps of this glacier date from the 1850s, but > >> > > > > > > > > observations of it have intensified since the 1950s.
> >> > > > > > > > > They track the marked acceleration of the ice over recent decades, and > >> > > > > > > > > show its speed increasing dramatically in the past few years.
> >> > > > > > > > > The Hellheim glacier, draining 4 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, > >> > > > > > > > > tells a similar story.
> >> > > > > > > > > Its speed increased from 8km a year in 2000 to 11km a year in 2005, > >> > > > > > > > > and has since accelerated.
> >> > > > > > > > > The reason the glaciers are speeding up is simple:
> >> > > > > > > > > Greenland is getting warmer.
> >> > > > > > > > > Jacqueline McGlade, director of the European Environment Agency, says: > >> > > > > > > > > “The amount of ice that is being lost is far more than we thought. > >> > > > > > > > > Greenland is warming faster than the computer models predicted, and > >> > > > > > > > > that is a worry.”
> >> > > > > > > > > The Arctic has warmed at three times the rate of the rest of the world > >> > > > > > > > > in the past 100 years, and temperatures continue to rise.
> >> > > > > > > > > Ola Johannessen, chief of Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote > >> > > > > > > > > Sensing Centre, has worked on ice for more than 30 years.
> >> > > > > > > > > He has never seen anything like the current situation.
> >> > > > > > > > > “There is no doubt that what we are seeing is the result of global > >> > > > > > > > > warming. The glaciers are moving faster. Ice is being lost from the > >> > > > > > > > > Greenland ice sheet, and that will raise sea levels.”
> >> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so > >> > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
> >> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long > >> > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future > >> > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
> >> > > > > > > > > The tale the ice cores tell is full of foreboding.
> >> > > > > > > > > Climate changes of the past have not been slow, gradual increases in > >> > > > > > > > > temperature.
> >> > > > > > > > > Rather, they have been abrupt – sudden and steep warmings and > >> > > > > > > > > coolings, sometimes over a matter of decades.
> >> > > > > > > > > This has led researchers to suggest that certain feedback loops, or > >> > > > > > > > > tipping points, exist in the earth’s climate system – points at which > >> > > > > > > > > the warming or cooling becomes self-reinforcing and much more rapid.
> >> > > > > > > > > Some feedback effects are already at work in Greenland.
> >> > > > > > > > > Stand on top of a glacier, far from where the bergs calve with loud > >> > > > > > > > > cracks, and you hear a strange background murmur, a ceaseless > >> > > > > > > > > whispering that appears to have no source.
> >> > > > > > > > > This is the sound of meltwater rushing down through fissures in the > >> > > > > > > > > ice.
> >> > > > > > > > > When it reaches the bottom, the water lubricates the flow of the ice > >> > > > > > > > > over the rocks beneath, speeding the glaciers on their way.
> >> > > > > > > > > The more meltwater, the more lubrication and the faster the ice moves.
> >> > > > > > > > > Other tipping points might include the rapid disappearance of the > >> > > > > > > > > Amazon rainforest, which could be caused by drought.
> >> > > > > > > > > If that happened, all the carbon the forests absorb would be released, > >> > > > > > > > > and global warming would accelerate.
> >> > > > > > > > > If temperatures rose more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels, > >> > > > > > > > > catastrophe would ensue, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on > >> > > > > > > > > Climate Change.
> >> > > > > > > > > More than one-third of the world’s species would disappear; hundreds > >> > > > > > > > > of millions of people would face famine; floods and storms would whip > >> > > > > > > > > rich and poor countries alike.
> >> > > > > > > > > Kyoto was greeted as a triumph in 1997 when it was signed, but > >> > > > > > > > > scarcely was the ink dry than the whole project collapsed.
> >> > > > > > > > > It became clear the US Congress would never ratify it.
> >> > > > > > > > > The real threat of climate change is not that the ice will melt > >> > > > > > > > > (though when it does, we are in trouble because the departure of > >> > > > > > > > > reflective ice leaves dark sea that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, > >> > > > > > > > > increasing the rate of global warming in another feedback loop).
> >> > > > > > > > > The real disruptions of climate change will be felt far from here:
> >> > > > > > > > > in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heat will become unbearable;
> >> > > > > > > > > in south-east Asia, where rising sea levels will claim more and more > >> > > > > > > > > land and typhoons will destroy towns and villages;
> >> > > > > > > > > in southern Europe, where drought will render the land unsuitable for > >> > > > > > > > > agriculture.
> >> > > > > > > > > The biggest threat of all is to the world’s social and political > >> > > > > > > > > stability – the famines, droughts, floods and storms of a warming > >> > > > > > > > > world could cause prolonged conflict, mass migration on a scale we > >> > > > > > > > > shudder to imagine, and a counter-reaction to that migration from the > >> > > > > > > > > lucky northern countries.
> >> > > > > > > > > It’s just that Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see > >> > > > > > > > > the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and > >> > > > > > > > > their effects on the natural world.
> >> > > > > > Wow, they can grow potatoes now. Will the horrors of global warming > >> > > > > > ever cease? Let's spend trillions of dollars to stop this horrible > >> > > > > > disaster.
> >> > > > > It doesn't alter the fact that you implicitly posted mis-information.
> >> > > > Not that you can expect a serious response from anyone posting under a > >> > > > handle like "Monkey Clumps" but first rightards deny AGW or at least > >> > > > treat it with a great deal of levity and when presented with > >> > > > irrefutable evidence it exists they then suggest it's a good thing.
> >> > > Which is entirely consistent. If the greentards want us all to spend > >> > > untold
>On Nov 3, 3:54 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> >wrote: >> Bill Ward wrote: >> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>> >>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>> >>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single >> >>>>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice >> >>>>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
>> >>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
>> >>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an >> >>>> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show >> >>>> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or >> >>>> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water >> >>>> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills >> >>>> over.
>•• ROTFLMAO - If the glass is 'brim full' > anything added will create over spill. >> >>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >> >>>> the land, of course.
>There is no place where the oceans are "brim" full.
>> >>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
>> >>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the >> >>> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
>•• Just take a bottle of water, cap it and put in the > freezer. Be prepared to clean up a mess of > broken glass
Maybe the laws of physics are different in some places, but I think I have heard of motor blocks being cracked when the water freezes.
But maybe its gossip, anybody want to test to see if water expands when it freezes by not putting antifreeze in?
Maybe it never freezes in some places, could that explain some opinions?
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Bill Ward wrote: >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >>>>> "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>>>>>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one >>>>>>> single millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. >>>>>>> The ice contracts as it melts and so the level can't change. >>>>>> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
>>>> Dittoheads don't do science.
>>>>>> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced >>>>>> an amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will >>>>>> show this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of >>>>>> water. Or melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each >>>>>> case the water that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact >>>>>> water always spills over.
>>>>>> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >>>>>> the land, of course. >>>>> And where did the water initially come from, eh?
>>>>> Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the >>>>> glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass. >>>> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows >>>> and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice >>>> cold *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
>>>> The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice >>>> cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold >>>> fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other >>>> temperatures it occupies a greater volume.
>>>> So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3% >>>> increase in total oceanic volume.
>>> Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. >>> Try dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.
>> You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When >> floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more >> volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps >> have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.
>How else do you interpret "total oceanic volume"? Words have meaning. >Your statement infers the ocean would increase in volume by 3% when a >cubic meter of ice melts. Is it really me that needs to "pay attention", >or you?
>> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as >> fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube >> on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
>I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.
Did he say anything to convince you that freezing bursts pipes all the time?
All ice should be considered fresh water ice, which has been claimed as having 10 ninths the volume of water, but is more like 997/917 when changing from 25 C to minus 10 C.
How (floating) melting ice is supposed to cause any expansion in ocean water is a mystery to me.
<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so >> >> > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long >> >> > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future >> >> > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Every year, 35 billion tonnes of ice break free of the Greenland ice >> >> > > > > > > > > sheet here.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Only the mammoth glaciers of Antarctica can compare.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The Isbrae – also known as Sermeq Kujalleq – moves at 40m a day.
>> >> > > > > > > > > For glaciers, this is pretty quick.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Glaciers have always made their way to the sea.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Snow falls on the vast Greenland ice sheet – this is by far the >> >> > > > > > > > > world’s biggest island – and the weight pushes out the ice at the >> >> > > > > > > > > edges.
>> >> > > > > > > > > But the remarkable thing about the Jakobshavn Isbrae – and nearly all >> >> > > > > > > > > of Greenland’s glaciers, and most of the glaciers in the world – is >> >> > > > > > > > > how fast those outward waves are flowing now.
>> >> > > > > > > > > In 2002, when researchers measured the Jakobshavn Isbrae, which drains >> >> > > > > > > > > 6.5 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, it was moving only half as >> >> > > > > > > > > quickly as it is today, and pouring only half the present volume of >> >> > > > > > > > > ice into the fjord.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The earliest known maps of this glacier date from the 1850s, but >> >> > > > > > > > > observations of it have intensified since the 1950s.
>> >> > > > > > > > > They track the marked acceleration of the ice over recent decades, and >> >> > > > > > > > > show its speed increasing dramatically in the past few years.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The Hellheim glacier, draining 4 per cent of the Greenland ice sheet, >> >> > > > > > > > > tells a similar story.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Its speed increased from 8km a year in 2000 to 11km a year in 2005, >> >> > > > > > > > > and has since accelerated.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The reason the glaciers are speeding up is simple:
>> >> > > > > > > > > Jacqueline McGlade, director of the European Environment Agency, says: >> >> > > > > > > > > “The amount of ice that is being lost is far more than we thought. >> >> > > > > > > > > Greenland is warming faster than the computer models predicted, and >> >> > > > > > > > > that is a worry.”
>> >> > > > > > > > > The Arctic has warmed at three times the rate of the rest of the world >> >> > > > > > > > > in the past 100 years, and temperatures continue to rise.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Ola Johannessen, chief of Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote >> >> > > > > > > > > Sensing Centre, has worked on ice for more than 30 years.
>> >> > > > > > > > > He has never seen anything like the current situation.
>> >> > > > > > > > > “There is no doubt that what we are seeing is the result of global >> >> > > > > > > > > warming. The glaciers are moving faster. Ice is being lost from the >> >> > > > > > > > > Greenland ice sheet, and that will raise sea levels.”
>> >> > > > > > > > > In the past two decades, the evidence for global warming has piled so >> >> > > > > > > > > high it is no longer disputed by mainstream scientists.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Much of this evidence has come from Greenland, as have the long >> >> > > > > > > > > climate records that have allowed scientists to predict the future >> >> > > > > > > > > progress of global warming.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The tale the ice cores tell is full of foreboding.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Climate changes of the past have not been slow, gradual increases in >> >> > > > > > > > > temperature.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Rather, they have been abrupt – sudden and steep warmings and >> >> > > > > > > > > coolings, sometimes over a matter of decades.
>> >> > > > > > > > > This has led researchers to suggest that certain feedback loops, or >> >> > > > > > > > > tipping points, exist in the earth’s climate system – points at which >> >> > > > > > > > > the warming or cooling becomes self-reinforcing and much more rapid.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Some feedback effects are already at work in Greenland.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Stand on top of a glacier, far from where the bergs calve with loud >> >> > > > > > > > > cracks, and you hear a strange background murmur, a ceaseless >> >> > > > > > > > > whispering that appears to have no source.
>> >> > > > > > > > > This is the sound of meltwater rushing down through fissures in the >> >> > > > > > > > > ice.
>> >> > > > > > > > > When it reaches the bottom, the water lubricates the flow of the ice >> >> > > > > > > > > over the rocks beneath, speeding the glaciers on their way.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The more meltwater, the more lubrication and the faster the ice moves.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Other tipping points might include the rapid disappearance of the >> >> > > > > > > > > Amazon rainforest, which could be caused by drought.
>> >> > > > > > > > > If that happened, all the carbon the forests absorb would be released, >> >> > > > > > > > > and global warming would accelerate.
>> >> > > > > > > > > If temperatures rose more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels, >> >> > > > > > > > > catastrophe would ensue, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on >> >> > > > > > > > > Climate Change.
>> >> > > > > > > > > More than one-third of the world’s species would disappear; hundreds >> >> > > > > > > > > of millions of people would face famine; floods and storms would whip >> >> > > > > > > > > rich and poor countries alike.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Kyoto was greeted as a triumph in 1997 when it was signed, but >> >> > > > > > > > > scarcely was the ink dry than the whole project collapsed.
>> >> > > > > > > > > It became clear the US Congress would never ratify it.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The real threat of climate change is not that the ice will melt >> >> > > > > > > > > (though when it does, we are in trouble because the departure of >> >> > > > > > > > > reflective ice leaves dark sea that absorbs more of the sun’s heat, >> >> > > > > > > > > increasing the rate of global warming in another feedback loop).
>> >> > > > > > > > > The real disruptions of climate change will be felt far from here:
>> >> > > > > > > > > in sub-Saharan Africa, where the heat will become unbearable;
>> >> > > > > > > > > in south-east Asia, where rising sea levels will claim more and more >> >> > > > > > > > > land and typhoons will destroy towns and villages;
>> >> > > > > > > > > in southern Europe, where drought will render the land unsuitable for >> >> > > > > > > > > agriculture.
>> >> > > > > > > > > The biggest threat of all is to the world’s social and political >> >> > > > > > > > > stability – the famines, droughts, floods and storms of a warming >> >> > > > > > > > > world could cause prolonged conflict, mass migration on a scale we >> >> > > > > > > > > shudder to imagine, and a counter-reaction to that migration from the >> >> > > > > > > > > lucky northern countries.
>> >> > > > > > > > > It’s just that Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic, are where we see >> >> > > > > > > > > the first and clearest signs of rapidly increasing temperatures and >> >> > > > > > > > > their effects on the natural world.
>> >> > > > > > Wow, they can grow potatoes now. Will the horrors of global warming >> >> > > > > > ever cease? Let's spend trillions of dollars to stop this horrible >> >> > > > > > disaster.
>> >> > > > > It doesn't alter the fact that you implicitly posted mis-information.
>> >> > > > Not that you can expect a serious response from anyone posting under a >> >> > > > handle like "Monkey Clumps" but first
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote: >Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter Muehlbauer wrote: >> > "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 1, 6:36 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>> >>> Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single >> >>> millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice >> >>> contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
>> >> Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
>> Dittoheads don't do science.
>> >> When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an >> >> amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show >> >> this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or >> >> melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water >> >> that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills >> >> over.
>> >> Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto >> >> the land, of course.
>> > And where did the water initially come from, eh?
>> > Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the glass >> > first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
>> You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows >> and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold >> *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.
>That's why I asked, where the water *initially* came from. >You're right with pure water, but where does it come from? >Right, precipitation. And where did the precipitation come from? >Right, mostly of evaporation from oceans.
>Experiment:
>Take an Erlenmeyer flask and fill it with ocean water (assumed your 1.028 >g/ccm density). >Now heat that up with a heater while watching density increasing when WV >evaporates. >Collect the condensed steam. This is pure water. >Refill the Erlenmeyer flask with this pure water after you turned the heater >off. >Wow... it has the same density as before.
>As long as no WV is lost, you always get the same result, no matter what you >insert the experimental chain of WV cycle (interlinked ice bergs, or >anything). >You only get some minor *variations* in density due toheating and cooling, but >overall there is an equilibrium. >This is called natural change in the big Erlenmeyer flask called Earth. >It is a closed system.
And all ice is essentially fresh water.
All ice has at least 970/912 times the volume of warm water.
And most of the Ocean is not warm.
The bottom line is the measured rise in sea level, when it starts to rise measurably again.
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:01:54 -0600, Bill Ward > <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as >>> fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube >>> on a pool of mercury and then let it melt. >> I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.
Perhaps you could explain it in words of less than one syllable to the thicker than two short planks rednecked fuckwit who posted below then?
> Did he say anything to convince you that > freezing bursts pipes all the time?
> All ice should be considered fresh water ice, > which has been claimed as having 10 ninths the > volume of water, but is more like 997/917 when > changing from 25 C to minus 10 C.
> How (floating) melting ice is supposed to cause > any expansion in ocean water is a mystery to me.
Clueless about physics. The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water.
When it melts it has the volume of liquid water at 0C this is a larger volume by 3% than the displacement needed to support 1kg of floating ice in polar brine seawater. The result is not in doubt.
<|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >I M @ good guy wrote: >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:01:54 -0600, Bill Ward >> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as >>>> fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube >>>> on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
>>> I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.
>Perhaps you could explain it in words of less than one syllable to the >thicker than two short planks rednecked fuckwit who posted below then?
>> Did he say anything to convince you that >> freezing bursts pipes all the time?
>> All ice should be considered fresh water ice, >> which has been claimed as having 10 ninths the >> volume of water, but is more like 997/917 when >> changing from 25 C to minus 10 C.
>> How (floating) melting ice is supposed to cause >> any expansion in ocean water is a mystery to me.
>Clueless about physics. The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water.
>When it melts it has the volume of liquid water at 0C this is a larger >volume by 3% than the displacement needed to support 1kg of floating ice >in polar brine seawater. The result is not in doubt.
>Regards, >Martin Brown
Do you claim that (fresh water) ice does not have 972/912 times the volume of fresh water at plus 20 C?
What does zero C water have to do with it, the 3% is not much compared to 972/912.
And then there is the issue of the latent heat of fusion which when ice melts _COOLS_ whatever caused it to melt.
In the Arctic, ice frozen from sea water might have some slush of salt crystals and fresh water crystals, but I don't see how that is an issue.
You are welcome to try again to overcome a volume reduction of 972 to 912 to explain how you AGW is supposed to cause sea level rise by expansion.
And since much of the deep ocean may be colder than 4 C, warming toward 4 C may actually cause a lowering of sea level, but that might take more heat than available for such a large mass.
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:43:53 +0000, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >I M @ good guy wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:01:54 -0600, Bill Ward > >> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>>> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as > >>>> fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube > >>>> on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
> >>> I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.
> >Perhaps you could explain it in words of less than one syllable to the > >thicker than two short planks rednecked fuckwit who posted below then?
> >> Did he say anything to convince you that > >> freezing bursts pipes all the time?
> >> All ice should be considered fresh water ice, > >> which has been claimed as having 10 ninths the > >> volume of water, but is more like 997/917 when > >> changing from 25 C to minus 10 C.
> >> How (floating) melting ice is supposed to cause > >> any expansion in ocean water is a mystery to me.
> >Clueless about physics. The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water.
> >When it melts it has the volume of liquid water at 0C this is a larger > >volume by 3% than the displacement needed to support 1kg of floating ice > >in polar brine seawater. The result is not in doubt.
> >Regards, > >Martin Brown
> Do you claim that (fresh water) ice does not > have 972/912 times the volume of fresh water > at plus 20 C?
> What does zero C water have to do with it, > the 3% is not much compared to 972/912.
> And then there is the issue of the latent > heat of fusion which when ice melts _COOLS_ > whatever caused it to melt.
> In the Arctic, ice frozen from sea water > might have some slush of salt crystals and > fresh water crystals, but I don't see how that > is an issue.
> You are welcome to try again to overcome > a volume reduction of 972 to 912 to explain > how you AGW is supposed to cause sea level > rise by expansion.
> And since much of the deep ocean may > be colder than 4 C, warming toward 4 C may > actually cause a lowering of sea level, but that > might take more heat than available for such > a large mass.
You really shouldn't worry your pretty head about these things Mr Guy, as it is clearly way beyond your understanding.
<john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On Nov 4, 4:48 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:43:53 +0000, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >I M @ good guy wrote: >> >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:01:54 -0600, Bill Ward >> >> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>> >>>> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as >> >>>> fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube >> >>>> on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
>> >>> I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.
>> >Perhaps you could explain it in words of less than one syllable to the >> >thicker than two short planks rednecked fuckwit who posted below then?
>> >> Did he say anything to convince you that >> >> freezing bursts pipes all the time?
>> >> All ice should be considered fresh water ice, >> >> which has been claimed as having 10 ninths the >> >> volume of water, but is more like 997/917 when >> >> changing from 25 C to minus 10 C.
>> >> How (floating) melting ice is supposed to cause >> >> any expansion in ocean water is a mystery to me.
>> >Clueless about physics. The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water.
>> >When it melts it has the volume of liquid water at 0C this is a larger >> >volume by 3% than the displacement needed to support 1kg of floating ice >> >in polar brine seawater. The result is not in doubt.
>> >Regards, >> >Martin Brown
>> Do you claim that (fresh water) ice does not >> have 972/912 times the volume of fresh water >> at plus 20 C?
>> What does zero C water have to do with it, >> the 3% is not much compared to 972/912.
>> And then there is the issue of the latent >> heat of fusion which when ice melts _COOLS_ >> whatever caused it to melt.
>> In the Arctic, ice frozen from sea water >> might have some slush of salt crystals and >> fresh water crystals, but I don't see how that >> is an issue.
>> You are welcome to try again to overcome >> a volume reduction of 972 to 912 to explain >> how you AGW is supposed to cause sea level >> rise by expansion.
>> And since much of the deep ocean may >> be colder than 4 C, warming toward 4 C may >> actually cause a lowering of sea level, but that >> might take more heat than available for such >> a large mass.
>You really shouldn't worry your pretty head about these things Mr Guy, >as it is clearly way beyond your understanding.
> <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >On Nov 4, 4:48 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:43:53 +0000, Martin Brown
> >> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >I M @ good guy wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:01:54 -0600, Bill Ward > >> >> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> >>>> The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as > >> >>>> fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube > >> >>>> on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.
> >> >>> I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.
> >> >Perhaps you could explain it in words of less than one syllable to the > >> >thicker than two short planks rednecked fuckwit who posted below then?
> >> >> Did he say anything to convince you that > >> >> freezing bursts pipes all the time?
> >> >> All ice should be considered fresh water ice, > >> >> which has been claimed as having 10 ninths the > >> >> volume of water, but is more like 997/917 when > >> >> changing from 25 C to minus 10 C.
> >> >> How (floating) melting ice is supposed to cause > >> >> any expansion in ocean water is a mystery to me.
> >> >Clueless about physics. The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water.
> >> >When it melts it has the volume of liquid water at 0C this is a larger > >> >volume by 3% than the displacement needed to support 1kg of floating ice > >> >in polar brine seawater. The result is not in doubt.
> >> >Regards, > >> >Martin Brown
> >> Do you claim that (fresh water) ice does not > >> have 972/912 times the volume of fresh water > >> at plus 20 C?
> >> What does zero C water have to do with it, > >> the 3% is not much compared to 972/912.
> >> And then there is the issue of the latent > >> heat of fusion which when ice melts _COOLS_ > >> whatever caused it to melt.
> >> In the Arctic, ice frozen from sea water > >> might have some slush of salt crystals and > >> fresh water crystals, but I don't see how that > >> is an issue.
> >> You are welcome to try again to overcome > >> a volume reduction of 972 to 912 to explain > >> how you AGW is supposed to cause sea level > >> rise by expansion.
> >> And since much of the deep ocean may > >> be colder than 4 C, warming toward 4 C may > >> actually cause a lowering of sea level, but that > >> might take more heat than available for such > >> a large mass.
> >You really shouldn't worry your pretty head about these things Mr Guy, > >as it is clearly way beyond your understanding.
|
