Just spotted this....Hot topic

[BSM1]

Part of me thinks you're gaslighting here. I very clearly said I was talking about ice "above sea level". In other words, NOT the submerged ice... wow!

The submerged ice displaces water, not the ice that is not submerged if the ice is resting on the bottom.

If the ice is floating, ice that is not submerged will not increase the level. If the ice is not floating and is not submerged it will increase the level when it melts.

Sorry guys, you're dead wrong. Anything in the water displaces the water; doesn't matter if it's above or below the surface (btw, this is why steel ships float).

Wanna try another experiment at home? Put a single ice cube in glass and fill the glass to the brim. This ice cube will float (not submerged) and as it melts in will not raise the water level. Don't trust me? Try it. This works for a single ice cube or a mega ice berg.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry guys, you're dead wrong. Anything in the water displaces the water; doesn't matter if it's above or below the surface (btw, this is why steel ships float).

Wanna try another experiment at home? Put a single ice cube in glass and fill the glass to the brim. This ice cube will float (not submerged) and as it melts in will not raise the water level. Don't trust me? Try it.

Again, you are talking about floating, I am not. Reread my posts.

 

[BSM1]

Again, you are talking about floating, I am not. Reread my posts.

Doesn't matter (see above).

 

[Milton Platt]

Global warming data that riled doubters is confirmed

9 / 18

Associated Press
Get the app
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer6 hrs ago
SHARE
SHARE
TWEET
SHARE
EMAIL

DeGeneres and Williams discuss Kim Burrell's cancelled 'Ellen' appearance

© AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko In this Jan. 22, 2015 photo, a zodiac carrying a team of international scientists heads to Bernardo O'Higgins, Antarctica.
WASHINGTON — A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.
The adjustments , made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures. The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency's scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn't answering its requests quickly enough.
The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures. Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.
"Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right," Hausfather said. "They were not in any way cooking the books."
NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data. Buoys and satellite data don't have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.
In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.
Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren't part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.
"This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas," Trenberth said in an email.
Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Hausfather's study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .
___
Online:
Science Advances: Science Advances
___
Follow Seth Borenstein at seth borenstein (@borenbears) | Twitter and his work can be found at SETH BORENSTEIN .

As a friend of mine is wont to say, "Washington is just child care without adult supervision."

 

[Curious George]

No it does ma

Doesn't matter (see above).

no it does matter. Put 100ml water in a cup now put 1kg ice in the same cup. Let the ice melting, tell me what happens.

 

[icehorse]

Sorry guys, you're dead wrong. Anything in the water displaces the water; doesn't matter if it's above or below the surface (btw, this is why steel ships float).

<slaps forehead>

 

[BSM1]

No it does ma

no it does matter. Put 100ml water in a cup now put 1kg ice in the same cup. Let the ice melting, tell me what happens.

<slaps forehead>

This is why it's hard to take you guys seriously; you think you know what you're saying. If you take 100ml of water and put it in a cup, and then you place one kg of ice in the same cup you are going to raise the water level accordingly. When the ice melts it is not going to raise the water level any higher. Think about it! It's the same principle with the ice (or ships, or rocks, or sea turtles, etc.) that's already in the ocean. These items have already DISPLACED their share of the water. The only way that items in the ocean will raise or lower sea levels is if you take them out of the water or put them in. The ice that's already in the ocean has raised the sea level as much as it can, melting will make absolutely no difference. ( As a matter of fact in may lower the sea level by the mass of the air that escapes the ice.) This is not rocket science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is why it's hard to take you guys seriously; you think you know what you're saying. If you take 100ml of water and put it in a cup, and then you place one kg of ice in the same cup you are going to raise the water level accordingly. When the ice melts it is not going to raise the water level any higher. Think about it! It's the same principle with the ice (or ships, or rocks, or sea turtles, etc.) that's already in the ocean. These items have already DISPLACED their share of the water. The only way that items in the ocean will raise or lower sea levels is if you take them out of the water or put them in. The ice that's already in the ocean has raised the sea level as much as it can, melting will make absolutely no difference. ( As a matter of fact in may lower the sea level by the mass of the air that escapes the ice.) This is not rocket science.

You're trying to argue against observed facts, which is polar caps are melting, and many islands are beginning to be submerged with many villages already having had their ways of life disrupted, or know they are facing a pending disruption, due to raising sea levels.

 

[icehorse]

When the ice melts it is not going to raise the water level any higher.

Imagine you're sitting upright in a bathtub. What happens to the water level when you decide to immerse more of yourself in the water?

Now as far as icebergs already in the water, or ice cubes already in the glass... These bits of ice are about 90% submerged. So when they melt, the water level will be affected by only that 10% that was above water to begin with. So indeed, melting icebergs have very little impact on the water level. Some, but not much.

But (now for the third time), my first example was *specifically* about the above ground glaciers that are melting and flowing into the oceans.

 

[Curious George]

This is why it's hard to take you guys seriously; you think you know what you're saying. If you take 100ml of water and put it in a cup, and then you place one kg of ice in the same cup you are going to raise the water level accordingly. When the ice melts it is not going to raise the water level any higher. Think about it! It's the same principle with the ice (or ships, or rocks, or sea turtles, etc.) that's already in the ocean. These items have already DISPLACED their share of the water. The only way that items in the ocean will raise or lower sea levels is if you take them out of the water or put them in. The ice that's already in the ocean has raised the sea level as much as it can, melting will make absolutely no difference. ( As a matter of fact in may lower the sea level by the mass of the air that escapes the ice.) This is not rocket science.

You are killing me here. This is true iff the ice is floating or the ice is completely submerged. If we have ice that is resting upon other ice which is resting upon the bottom, and then you have ice resting still upon that ice such that it is outside of the water, that ice which is not submerged is not displacing any water. Make you a deal...if I am wrong, I will gladly admit I understand nothing about ice and water and whatever you say regarding glacial melting and climate change is more informed than my own opinions....if I am right you make the same concession. Just remember, we are talking about ice that is not floating and is not submerged.

 

[Curious George]

Imagine you're sitting upright in a bathtub. What happens to the water level when you decide to immerse more of yourself in the water?

Now as far as icebergs already in the water, or ice cubes already in the glass... These bits of ice are about 90% submerged. So when they melt, the water level will be affected by only that 10% that was above water to begin with. So indeed, melting icebergs have very little impact on the water level. Some, but not much.

But (now for the third time), my first example was *specifically* about the above ground glaciers that are melting and flowing into the oceans.

the ice that floats does may have unsubmerged portions that do not matter. The icebergs that do not float have unsubmerged portions that do absolutely matter. No land mass is needed. The ice is the land mass at this point.

 

[BSM1]

You're trying to argue against observed facts, which is polar caps are melting, and many islands are beginning to be submerged with many villages already having had their ways of life disrupted, or know they are facing a pending disruption, due to raising sea levels.

Unsubstantiated garbage.

Imagine you're sitting upright in a bathtub. What happens to the water level when you decide to immerse more of yourself in the water?

Now as far as icebergs already in the water, or ice cubes already in the glass... These bits of ice are about 90% submerged. So when they melt, the water level will be affected by only that 10% that was above water to begin with. So indeed, melting icebergs have very little impact on the water level. Some, but not much.

But (now for the third time), my first example was *specifically* about the above ground glaciers that are melting and flowing into the oceans.

Did you even read what you wrote? If you are sitting in a tub of water you have already raised to water level in the tub to reflect your displacement. No matter what position you assume in the tub from that point on you haven't added anymore weight pressure on the water. Think about it!

You are killing me here. This is true iff the ice is floating or the ice is completely submerged. If we have ice that is resting upon other ice which is resting upon the bottom, and then you have ice resting still upon that ice such that it is outside of the water, that ice which is not submerged is not displacing any water. Make you a deal...if I am wrong, I will gladly admit I understand nothing about ice and water and whatever you say regarding glacial melting and climate change is more informed than my own opinions....if I am right you make the same concession. Just remember, we are talking about ice that is not floating and is not submerged.

Again, it doesn't matter if ice is sitting on ice. No matter where the ice is it has already displaced it's portion of sea water. I agree if you add water or anything else to the ocean it could theoretically raise the water level (assuming there were no other forces at work here) but the argument that the melting sea ice is raising sea levels just doesn't hold water. And there is absolutely no proof that the ice caps are melting.

the ice that floats does may have unsubmerged portions that do not matter. The icebergs that do not float have unsubmerged portions that do absolutely matter. No land mass is needed. The ice is the land mass at this point.

You have no idea what you are talking about and, frankly, neither do I.

 

[Curious George]

Unsubstantiated garbage.



Did you even read what you wrote? If you are sitting in a tub of water you have already raised to water level in the tub to reflect your displacement. No matter what position you assume in the tub from that point on you haven't added anymore weight pressure on the water. Think about it!




Again, it doesn't matter if ice is sitting on ice. No matter where the ice is it has already displaced it's portion of sea water. I agree if you add water or anything else to the ocean it could theoretically raise the water level (assuming there were no other forces at work here) but the argument that the melting sea ice is raising sea levels just doesn't hold water. And there is absolutely no proof that the ice caps are melting.




You have no idea what you are talking about and, frankly, neither do I.

Try to imagine this....you take an ice sculpture, you place that ice sculpture in a bowl. The bowl has 1cm of water inside. Are you really trying to claim that after the ice sculpture melts you will still have 1cm of water?!?

Try to understand what is being said. That the ice is not completely submerged and that the ice is not floating DOES matter

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unsubstantiated garbage.

Then what do you say to villages who's crops are threatened by sea water from rising sea levels? What of places that are already flooding, as we speak? What do you say to those who see their communities are going to have to evacuate within a few years?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you even read what you wrote? If you are sitting in a tub of water you have already raised to water level in the tub to reflect your displacement. No matter what position you assume in the tub from that point on you haven't added anymore weight pressure on the water. Think about it!

Have you ever observed ice melting in a drink as it slowly melts in a glass?

 

[Curious George]

Have you ever observed ice melting in a drink as it slowly melts in a glass?

This is where some people are getting confused. You can put ice in a glass and if the ice is floating in the liquid it will not raise the level. If the ice is completely submerged it will not raise the level. But if the ice is not floating and is not completely submerged it is not displacing any water.

 

[Curious George]

Unsubstantiated garbage.



Did you even read what you wrote? If you are sitting in a tub of water you have already raised to water level in the tub to reflect your displacement. No matter what position you assume in the tub from that point on you haven't added anymore weight pressure on think about it!

No, the concept was to immerse more of yourself. But try it. Stand in a tub of water, now sit down. What happens. This is because your body outside the water is not displacing any water because it is being supported by your feet which are in turn supported by the bottom of the tub. Once you put more of your body that was not displacing the water in the tub then that part of your body is now displacing water.

 

[icehorse]

A little physics lesson:

One cubic foot of water weighs a little more than 62 pounds. ANY object that has a volume of one cubic foot will float in water if it weighs less than 62 pounds, and it will sink if it weighs more than 62 pounds.

But ANYTHING that floats is partially submerged and is partially above water. Let's consider several different objects that are all one cubic foot in size:

object A weighs 5 pounds
object B weighs 58 pounds
object C weighs 70 pounds

Object A will float high in the water, almost none of it will be submerged.
Object B (ice would fit this category), will barely float, it will be mostly submerged.
Object C will not float.

So back to glaciers and icebergs...

Icebergs fall into the "barely floating" category. We've all heard the phrase "the tip of the iceberg". When you see an iceberg floating, 90% of it is under water. As such, when an iceberg melts, it has very little impact on sea level change.

But a glacier is mostly above water. When a part of a glacier breaks off (calves), the part that broke off, went from being mostly out of the water before calving, to mostly in the water after calving. That recently calved part of the glacier DOES IMPACT sea level.

If you take a glass of water that's half full, and add some ice cubes into the glass, the level of the water will rise. Those glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are like those ice cubes you add into a partially full glass.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is where some people are getting confused. You can put ice in a glass and if the ice is floating in the liquid it will not raise the level. If the ice is completely submerged it will not raise the level. But if the ice is not floating and is not completely submerged it is not displacing any water.

I was thinking a glass of with a liquid where the ice isn't totally submerged, such as with people who like lots of ice or the mountain of ice most fast food places put in their drinks.

 

[BSM1]

This is where some people are getting confused. You can put ice in a glass and if the ice is floating in the liquid it will not raise the level. If the ice is completely submerged it will not raise the level. But if the ice is not floating and is not completely submerged it is not displacing any water.

WHAT!?