Climate Change Report

[NorthDallas40]

Your formula is completely flawed. Increase in elevation is dependent on the volume of the matter being submerged and the surface area of the liquid. Your whimsically simple equation does not account for surface area of the ocean whatsoever, and only the volume, which hardly gives you enough information to claim an increase in sea level.

For you to say I am propagating bad science irony at its core.

Ok...









Hint. You totally ignored the volumetric change to to phase change and just threw a bunch of words trying to rationalize it. If the entire Antarctic ice cap melted the ocean level is expected to rise 200 ft.

And about that Antarctic Ice Sheet melting...

Why is Antarctica's sea ice growing while the Arctic melts? Scientists now know why.

I think you should go back to studying frankly.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Pew says there are more than 200 religious lobbies, employing more than 1,000 people in the D.C. area.



So just like pretty much every other lobby or special interest group in Washington then?



I never said any of that. You just got butthurt about an analogy because you're too sensitive about religion and/or ACC. The funny thing is that my analogy implied that failed predictions of Jesus' return wasn't grounds for dismissing Christianity. I'm still not sure what about that analogy was stupid; you more or less changed the nature of your objection when pressed on it.



"You don't need a 30-round magazine!"

By the way, I've not said that the government should pass some law about climate change, so your objections to me are pretty much irrelevant.

K, you win. I'm agnostic by trade, it just get's old hearing "but Jesus" the same as you do orange man bad. My solution, go plant a tree.

 

[MontyPython]

No, not really but arguing science with a Business major is sometimes fruitless. It doesn't follow since you included all ice. Only non-floating ice would have that effect.

Edit: the effect you are talking about also depends on temperature and salinity.

Again, you're wrong. Please google and read up on this.

 

[MontyPython]

Conservation of mass dictates that as ice melts the water level remains the same. Go do a science experiment in your kitchen tonight and see for yourself. Also since it’s estimated that 97.5% of the earth’s water is salt water I’m not too worried about rising sea levels due to ice melting.

The more you know.

Wrong. Salt v. fresh makes a difference. Go read up on it.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Again, you're wrong. Please google and read up on this.

which part?

 

[MontyPython]

which part?

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

[NorthDallas40]

Wrong. Salt v. fresh makes a difference. Go read up on it.

LMAO! Scroll up scooter

 

[Persian Vol]

Ok...









Hint. You totally ignored the volumetric change to to phase change and just threw a bunch of words trying to rationalize it. If the entire Antarctic ice cap melted the ocean level is expected to rise 200 ft.

And about that Antarctic Ice Sheet melting...

Why is Antarctica's sea ice growing while the Arctic melts? Scientists now know why.

I think you should go back to studying frankly.

The problem at the moment are that there are people like you. Charlatan climatologists who denounce real PhDs while spitting out jargon in which the non scientifally literate mind couldnt possibly tell is right or wrong. My “bunch of words” was addressing you on something you are foundationally incorrect on, and yet you are still trying to go to point B without acknowledging your complete error in the foundation of your argument.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

Scroll up again scooter! This is Exhibit A of the idiot science driving you people to spew this nonsense.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The problem at the moment are that there are people like you. Charlatan climatologists who denounce real PhDs while spitting out jargon in which the non scientifally literate mind couldnt possibly tell is right or wrong. My “bunch of words” was addressing you on something you are foundationally incorrect on, and yet you are still trying to go to point B without acknowledging your complete error in the foundation of your argument.

Show me some valid math then. You accuse me of spitting out jargon while that’s literally all you’ve done? And when called on it now you just attack with ad hominems... ok...

That “real PhD” is clueless that whole page on his paper is horribly and fundamentally flawed.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Scroll up again scooter! This is Exhibit A of the idiot science driving you people to spew this nonsense.

OMG, Archimedes was an idiot! Who'd a thunk it?

 

[82_VOL_83]

Well, his/her initial statement was in a very small form correct. However, you could tell that is was a bad attempt at making a synopsis of a principle that was evidently badly explained to begin with and flawed in it's presentation. I completely agree that melting of non-floating ice will have an effect on sea level. However, I completely disagree and dismiss that melting of floating ice changes sea level at all. The explanation also should have addressed how cold water is more dense than warm water and how the salinity changes with location on the globe.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Well, his/her initial statement was in a very small form correct. However, you could tell that is was a bad attempt at making a synopsis of a principle that was evidently badly explained to begin with and flawed in it's presentation. I completely agree that melting of non-floating ice will have an effect on sea level. However, I completely disagree and dismiss that melting of floating ice changes sea level at all. The explanation also should have addressed how cold water is more dense than warm water and how the salinity changes with location on the globe.

Yep I agree. Floating ice will not impact ocean levels even when density differences due to salinity is considered. There simply isn’t enough fresh water.

For non floating ice the single biggest threat is the Antarctic ice sheet. And as the link above shows it’s actually growing

We’re fine. But if they want to get my attention on Arctic ice I’m more concerned about the habitat loss to polar bears and other species. I do not believe we are threatened by Arctic I’ve melting at all.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yep I agree. Floating ice will not impact ocean levels even when density differences due to salinity is considered. There simply isn’t enough fresh water.

For non floating ice the single biggest threat is the Antarctic ice sheet. And as the link above shows it’s actually growing

We’re fine. But if they want to get my attention on Arctic ice I’m more concerned about the habitat loss to polar bears and other species. I do not believe we are threatened by Arctic I’ve melting at all.

But the density differences are the basis of the Archimedes principal. I guess that isn't established science and is still hearsay?

 

[Persian Vol]

Show me some valid math then. You accuse me of spitting out jargon while that’s literally all you’ve done? And when called on it now you just attack with ad hominems... ok...

That “real PhD” is clueless that whole page on his paper is horribly and fundamentally flawed.

Oh give me a ****ing break with that ad hominem nonsense. Calling you a charlatan for warranted reasons based off your posts is not an ad hominem attack. You presented an equation on sea level elevation that was completely incorrect, and I told you exactly why. Math on what exactly? You are the one stating things, and I am calling these statements incorrect.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Oh give me a ****ing break with that ad hominem nonsense. Calling you a charlatan for warranted reasons based off your posts is not an ad hominem attack. You presented an equation on sea level elevation that was completely incorrect, and I told you exactly why. Math on what exactly? You are the one stating things, and I am calling these statements incorrect.

At this point, math on anything dealing with ice and raising water levels.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Oh give me a ****ing break with that ad hominem nonsense. Calling you a charlatan for warranted reasons based off your posts is not an ad hominem attack. You presented an equation on sea level elevation that was completely incorrect, and I told you exactly why. Math on what exactly? You are the one stating things, and I am calling these statements incorrect.

Nope. You didn’t explain jack your very first statement was fundamentally wrong. You’re ignoring the volume distribution. For a volumetric increase of two shapes think about a tall slender tube vs a big wide pan. Your argument is incorrect with regard to all the variables impacting a pure elevation rise. The earth surface is 3/4 water. The width vs depth aspect ratio is extreme. This is very similar to another argument I get all the time on mass vs inertia. Thanks for the butt hurt reply though. I appreciate the laugh.

 

[NorthDallas40]

But the density differences are the basis of the Archimedes principal. I guess that isn't established science and is still hearsay?

I was trying to be nice and considerate to them.

 

[Persian Vol]

Nope. You didn’t explain jack your very first statement was fundamentally wrong. You’re ignoring the volume distribution. For a volumetric increase of two shapes think about a tall slender tube vs a big wide pan. Your argument is incorrect with regard to all the variables impacting a pure elevation rise. The earth surface is 3/4 water. The width vs depth aspect ratio is extreme. This is very similar to another argument I get all the time on mass vs inertia. Thanks for the butt hurt reply though. I appreciate the laugh.

Can you learn how to make an argument in a concise manner instead of jumping all over the place. I am not even sure what my “first statement” was anymore or what you thought I was insinuating. You’ve been throwing bits and pieces of math all over the place without a direct point. One of which formula was absurdly incorrect that I had to call you out on.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Nope. You didn’t explain jack your very first statement was fundamentally wrong. You’re ignoring the volume distribution. For a volumetric increase of two shapes think about a tall slender tube vs a big wide pan. Your argument is incorrect with regard to all the variables impacting a pure elevation rise. The earth surface is 3/4 water. The width vs depth aspect ratio is extreme. This is very similar to another argument I get all the time on mass vs inertia. Thanks for the butt hurt reply though. I appreciate the laugh.

Hey @Persian Vol i want to correct something. In the post I made in this quote I referenced your explanation of your disagreement on my math. I believe you actually did reference volumetric distribution in the statement “the surface area of the liquid” or upon rereading the post I think you did.

But that just reinforces my point. In the post you quoted I made another post referencing the surface area of the earth just following it. There simply isn’t enough fresh water to affect an increase in sea levels due to floating ice. You can attack that all you want but it’s pretty straight forward. The 1%ish total volume of floating ice will experience a 10% volume reduction when it phase changes to water. Floating ice melting isn’t going to raise sea levels. There isn’t enough of it.

Edit: also like 82 points out Archimedes Principle comes into play to further negate the whole issue. Only about 10% of the iceberg is above the water (density differences) and upon melting the resulting volume of melted fresh water is a wash. If you want to try to factor in salinity of the small percentage of fresh water available as impacting elevation there is simply too much ocean surface area to affect a relevant rise.

With regards to non floating ice the biggest sheet is increasing in size not decreasing.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Can you learn how to make an argument in a concise manner instead of jumping all over the place. I am not even sure what my “first statement” was anymore or what you thought I was insinuating. You’ve been throwing bits and pieces of math all over the place without a direct point. One of which formula was absurdly incorrect that I had to call you out on.

Read my post right below yours. Upon reading your post I missed the “surface area” reference. That was a mistake on my part. However as I also show due to the low percentage of free fresh water and the volumetric contraction when going to water from ice it’s moot.

 

[Roustabout]

There is a law of gravitation and a theory as well. We can use the law to make calculations but the theory tells us the why and how. I know it's not your style but you could always utilize the internet to research something a bit prior to accusing someone else of being wrong.



Care to post the evidence you have of this?

I said you were conflating.
I’m not wrong about that.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Good for you poindexter

 

[82_VOL_83]

Hey @Persian Vol i want to correct something. In the post I made in this quote I referenced your explanation of your disagreement on my math. I believe you actually did reference volumetric distribution in the statement “the surface area of the liquid” or upon rereading the post I think you did.

But that just reinforces my point. In the post you quoted I made another post referencing the surface area of the earth just following it. There simply isn’t enough fresh water to affect an increase in sea levels due to floating ice. You can attack that all you want but it’s pretty straight forward. The 1%ish total volume of floating ice will experience a 10% volume reduction when it phase changes to water. Floating ice melting isn’t going to raise sea levels. There isn’t enough of it.

Edit: also like 82 points out Archimedes Principle comes into play to further negate the whole issue. Only about 10% of the iceberg is above the water (density differences) and upon melting the resulting volume of melted fresh water is a wash. If you want to try to factor in salinity of the small percentage of fresh water available as impacting elevation there is simply too much ocean surface area to affect a relevant rise.

With regards to non floating ice the biggest sheet is increasing in size not decreasing.

I'll explain it this way, if a fresh water iceberg is floating in a fresh water lake, approx 2% of the iceberg would be exposed above water as that is the difference in density between H2O in its frozen form and H2O in its liquid form. That is a generalization because there is a difference in the ice density based on freeze rate and a difference in density of the water based on temp. Liquid water doesn't change that much but it does. Ice changes density enough that it could be noticeable but the reader should get the drift. The beauty of Archimedes principal is that it is purely a density equation. The iceberg raises the lake level exactly zero inches when it thaws.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'll explain it this way, if a fresh water iceberg is floating in a fresh water lake, approx 2% of the iceberg would be exposed above water as that is the difference in density between H2O in its frozen form and H2O in its liquid form. That is a generalization because there is a difference in the ice density based on freeze rate and a difference in density of the water based on temp. Liquid water doesn't change that much but it does. Ice changes density enough that it could be noticeable but the reader should get the drift. The beauty of Archimedes principal is that it is purely a density equation. The iceberg raises the lake level exactly zero inches when it thaws.

No I agree with you. I totally get what you’re saying. They then shift the argument to the density difference between salt water and fresh water. What I’m fumbling on is saying even if they are right (and I don’t think they are) there is only 2.5% of the total water that is fresh water. Salt water has a density of 1.025 kg/L vs 1.0 for fresh water or another 2.5% difference. So if all the fresh water in the world migrated into the ocean the difference would be 0.025^2 or 0.0625%. And that is spread out over a massive surface area since the earth is 3/4 covered in water. So even if they can make a point on that and I don’t think they can, it’s noise. This is all incredibly lousy science.

Again talk to me on habitat preservation and I’ll get on board. Keep screeching on rising sea levels and I tune out.