No frag he refers to a problem where melting sea ice allows more land ice into the oceansQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Printable View
No frag he refers to a problem where melting sea ice allows more land ice into the oceansQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I watched the film in class on Monday, so no, you're completely wrong. As you always are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He talks about Greenland and Antarctica. Not the Arctic sea ice. And yes, I'm damned sure of this: the reason why he specifically mentioned Greenland and Antarctica, but not the Arctic, was one of the question I posed to the class after they had watched it.
As for where your misconception comes from, I would suggest that you made it up in your own confused mind, alternatively that you have read some nutty blogger who made it up in his mind.
I can think for myself, thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You have just shown yourself completely incapable of doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I sell art, so I don't have to know the difference between volume and weight. You teach math, and made a mistake there. Joke is on you mia muca.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I blame that mistake squarely on TV2 showing Dzeko's lolmiss at the same time as I wrote that. Anyway: I do sloppy mistakes like that in every class I teach, and I don't consider it a negative. Keeps the little buggers pay attention if there's a good chance at pointing out mistakes done by the teacher...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Anyway: your mistake was not about the difference between volume, mass and density. The mistake was about which ice sheets could raise the sea level. It's always been the land ice, yet you have somehow managed to get the idea that everyone's talking about sea ice.
i made no mistake, you did.
Do we have to make a calculation on how much water it would take to raise the sea level with two meters, or Al Gore's 70 meters. It's just replacing a few variables, you will immediatly see how rediculous it is.
You claimed Al Gore/climate science claimed melting the arctic sea ice would raise sea levels. He/they do not, and never has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes. Do that. Calculate how much the water level will rise if the Antarctic melted. Please do, I'm waiting in anticipation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Actually it is more like a debate about how fast and how bad it will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
That deniers are still struggling with Michael Mann just shows how little they understand. It is the equivalent of trying to prove that Robert H. Goddard was a fraud and that would make those faked Moon landings go away. That the lawsuit still seems to be going on just shows what a fantasy world the author lives in.
Yes he did, I wildly exxagerated it though, just for fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhTsI
It happened before, It's happening now...exactly why it's happening now is speculation...some are better than others
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...y-in-the-past/
What part of Greenland and Western Antartica sound like the Artic sea to you? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What Al Gore does is is giving an accurate number for a situation that will take way longer than 100 years to occur. That's scare mongering, but not inaccurate.
As for the ice melting. Fragony, I'm sure you've noticed that floating ice has some volume above the water surface? And while doing the dishes, an empty pot displaces more water (=water level rises) when you push it down (faking increased density), until the water starts to pour in?
So if you push down the ice so all of it is covered by water, you'll rise the water level a little bit more, agreed?
That means that ice floating on water normally doesn't use all of it's volume to displace water. And the lighter something is, density wise (think that a pot's average density is the weight of the metal pot+the weight of the air inside it and divide by it's total volume), the less water it will displace while floating. And that direct correlation.
Or in short form. The extra volume water gets by freezing it to ice is exactly the same volume that'll be above the water surface if you place that ice in water.
I see you have no intention of calculating what will happen if the antarctic ice happened. It's a short and simple calculation, yet you refuse to do it.... Afraid of the answer, frags?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Why would I be worried, there is nothing to be worried about. But it should be easy if you have land ice mass, detract sea-ice volume shrinkage, and wrap it around a three-dimensional sphere, going from water covering 2/3 of the world. But why would you do such a thing when the earth isn't warming up. Give me the data and I'll do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I am bluffing by the way, I can do it but it has already been done, a few centimeters.
Attachment 12313Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The data:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
World ocean area: 361 000 000 km2
Antarctic ice sheet: 26 500 000 km3
GO!
Let me know if you need anything more.
Yeah I do, the amount of underwater ice and it's volume. Start is easy, 26.500.000/361.000.000, let's wrap that around a sphere minus 1/3. Not accurate of course but close enough.
The number above refers to land ice only, sea ice is excluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Than it's useless no, as when sea-ice melts oceans-levels lower. What do they say about tip of the iceberg?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Sea ice melting will not affect sea levels, so this is fortunately not something you need to calculate to solve the problem.*Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
*We'll simplify things a bit, and not worry about freshwater ice melting in salt water.
Of course it does, as sea-ice has more volume than liquid water. That is why you put anti-freeze in your car's cooling system in the winter. Ice will destroy your engine if you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, and the extra volume that would have caused your car tubes to burst is what you see floating on top of the sea surface. When sea ice melts in water, however, it results in the same sea level. That's assuming the iceberg is made of sea water, of course. If the iceberg is made of freshwater and melts in sea water, the sea level will rise a tiny bit(due to the difference between fresh and sea water). Since the rise is so small, however, we can safely disregard it for our simplified calculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Now, get back to thy calculations!
What you see floating in the water isn't replacing any water underwater anymore. So it's a factor. But why don't we start with the obvious, the outcome. The outcome is that water-level hasn't been rising. So we have a whatever = zero, or very close to it. So the melting of land-ice and the melting of sea ice must keep eachother in check no? I will continue once you give me something to work with.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Let me remind you, Gorists furiously scream that rising sea-levels are going to destroy America's coastlines. (Where he bought a house I might add)
Sigh. Fill a bottle half full of water. Mark the water line. Let it freeze. Mark the ice line. I expect you'll get the result you expect. That's a reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Now. Fill a bowl with water. Put in ice, as much as you want to. Make absolutly certain that all the ice is floating, otherwise you'll do an entirely different experiment*. Mark the water line. Cover it up (to ensure that you'll get minimal vaporisation, I'm not sure how needed it is, but it's a factor). Let the ice melt. Mark the water line. Compare results.
Don't post on that specific topic until you've done that. You'll see why.
*Well technically, you can do two more that way. The first one is about bottom frozen ice and that's somewhat relevant (there's some of that on Antartica) and is simply to have enough ice that some of it gets stuck on the bottom. The second one is if you're activly weighting the ice down somehow like putting a stone on top. That's result skewing and not naturally occuring on any larger scale.
No need for that, the ice we are talking about is already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Seconded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Must be a bonding experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Little hint, ice that is totally subdued is not floating ice. Water displacement is different. Even my four year old nephew understands that.
Re-read Ironside's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I already concluded why sea ice wouldn't touch the water levels a lot without actually knowing the answer, it's not that hard to understand.
The volume difference between the underwater part of an iceberg in comparison to liquid water = the part of the iceberg that is floating above the water line. As a result, when the entire iceberg melts, the underwater part loses some volume but that is made up for by the molten ice that was previously above the water line. As such, we can ignore sea ice since it's more or less a zero sum game and does NOT lower the water level.
You can calculate now Fragony.
Of course water levels lower when sea ice melts, what's so hard about it. Less volume = less replacement. Am I that smart or are you that stupid.