Global Warning Causes Falling Sea Levels

There are several reasons why the sea level will fall rather than rise when the polar ice caps melt:

1. Ice is less dense than water, especially sea water, thus the ice displaces more space than the sea water.
2. 90% of ice is located below the sea level line, which supports point 1

I agree with this assessment. Ice floats because it is less dense than water. If we fill a container with water and ice and allow the ice to melt, the water level will sink.

Therefore, Global Warming will not result in flooding.

materials contract in low temperatures, therefore as temperatures rise, water expands resulting in flooding

It'll be different.

That's the worst theory in the history of anything ever. You forgot about the ice that isn't floating on the ocean. What about all that ice covering Antarctica, eh? When the ice sheets around the edges melt (and they're melting much faster than expected) there'll be nothing to stop the ice covering the southern continent's surface from sliding into the ocean as well. And that will result in a sea level rise. Just drop a few ice cubes into a full glass of water and you'll see what I mean. Buoyancy and all that.

So you = fails at logics.

Not to mention the ocean IS rising. Oh wait.

1. You are all forgetting the fact that there is much less continental ice and glaciers existing over terrain than there are over water.

2. Glaciers are continuously replenished due to precipitation.  A large source of this percipitation comes from oceans.

3. Compact ice is still less dense then arctic and antarctic temperatures then sea water at those temperatures.

Not to mention the ocean IS rising. Oh wait.

Have any proof from sources that do not receive their funding from the Conspiracy or who are not quacks that believe in global warming.

Also, according to FET, any melting ice occurring from the ice wall is refrozen due to the temperature gradient occurring between earth and space.

1. I am not caring that there is much less continental ice than there is oceanic ice. That doesn't change anything.

2. I never said anything about glaciers I don't think.

3. What of it? It'll still affect sea levels regardless.

And quacks who believe in global warming? Care to show some evidence that it's not happening?

1. I am not caring that there is much less continental ice than there is oceanic ice. That doesn't change anything.

It does change everything.  Continental ice contribution would be nothing compared to the amount that oceanic ice would. In other words the sea level will fall more than it could rise.

2. I never said anything about glaciers I don't think.

So are you saying glaciers do not contribute?

3. What of it? It'll still affect sea levels regardless.

It does indeed affect sea levels.  The less dense ice takes up less space than sea water, thus when melted the new water added to the sea would have less volume than the ice thus causing sea levels to fall due to a reduced overall volume in the oceans.

And quacks who believe in global warming? Care to show some evidence that it doesn't exist?

Former Vice President Al Gore. 'nough said.  The rise in temperatures is just a unique and temporary phenomena  that has been observed over the last two centuries.  It is not significant enough to affect polar ice caps on a global scale.  I remember one time scientists believed that the earth was experiencing global cooling.

It does change everything.  Continental ice contribution would be nothing compared to the amount that oceanic ice would. In other words the sea level will fall more than it could rise.

It doesn't matter. Displacement is dependant on weight, which is in turn dependant on mass. The water will still have the same mass regardless of whether it is frozen or not. Thus displacement will be the same. The fact that ice expands when it freezes is the reason why ice floats on water in the first place. It has nothing to do with how much water is displaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Try this simple experiment and see for yourself. Get a large glass and fill it almost to the brim with water. Then drop five or six ice cubes into the glass. Then fill the glass all the way to the brim, just until it's almost overflowing. Carefully put the glass into the microwave and heat it for about thirty to forty seconds. You'll notive that despite the ice melting the water level in the glass is exactly the same as when you put it in the microwave.

-------------------
You've also forgotten thermal expansion -water expands as it heats up. So yet again warmer temperatures mean higher sea levels.

So are you saying glaciers do not contribute?

No, I'm saying I never mentioned glaciers.

It does indeed affect sea levels.  The less dense ice takes up less space than sea water, thus when melted the new water added to the sea would have less volume than the ice thus causing sea levels to fall due to a reduced overall volume in the oceans.

See above. Volume doesn't affect the displacement of the water. Just how much ice is exposed at the surface.

Former Vice President Al Gore. 'nough said.  The rise in temperatures is just a unique and temporary phenomena  that has been observed over the last two centuries.  It is not significant enough to affect polar ice caps on a global scale.  I remember one time scientists believed that the earth was experiencing global cooling.

What evidence do you have supporting the notion that this change is only temporary? And what evidence do you have to suggest that a change in the global climate would have no affect on the polar ice sheets?

And you're right, a few scientists did predict global cooling in the 70's. However, these predictions were not remotely similar to today's for several reasons. The predictions of an imminent ice age didn't have anything like the amount of evidence supporting global warming theory, and were mostly speculation. There also wasn't near the unanimity over the issue as there is over GW. Today we have an almost total scientific consensus over the issue, while in the 70's there were hardly any scientists supporting the idea.

Of course, all this is aside from the fact that from the late 1940's to the early 70's the climate did show a cooling trend. This was due primarily to an enormous increase in the use of aerosols and other particulate pollutants, which have a net cooling effect and which managed to briefly overwhelm the signal from the CO2. However, since the passing of the Clean Air acts levels of these chemicals in the atmosphere has stabilized and a warming trend has once again emerged.

It doesn't matter. Displacement is dependant on weight, which is in turn dependant on mass. The water will still have the same mass regardless of whether it is frozen or not. Thus displacement will be the same. The fact that ice expands when it freezes is the reason why ice floats on water in the first place. It has nothing to do with how much water is displaced.

Displacement as in volume displacement.  Ice will take up more volume than water since ice less dense.  And since 90% of ice is below sea level, the water level will be lower once the ice melts.  If you do not believe me, take a beaker and fill it to some water and add some ice cubes until the meniscus reaches some arbitrary value.  Cover the beaker with a hermetic seal.  Leave the beaker out in room temperature until the ice melts completely.  Now observe where the level of the meniscus is at.

To simulate the opposite effect, global cooling, put an unopened can of soda in the freezer for, lets say, several hours.  You will notice the can has expanded.

Try this simple experiment and see for yourself. Get a large glass and fill it almost to the brim with water. Then drop five or six ice cubes into the glass. Then fill the glass all the way to the brim, just until it's almost overflowing. Carefully put the glass into the microwave and heat it for about thirty to forty seconds. You'll notive that despite the ice melting the water level in the glass is exactly the same as when you put it in the microwave.

Your experiment has failed:
1. A portion of the water evaporated into the environment of the microwave.

2. Thermal expansion occurred in the glass, same with any other container.

3. Filling it to the brim causes the surface tension to be convex rather than concave (a bad simulation of the actual sea level)  Thus, the convex surface tension retains after the ice is melted simply because of the attraction between the molecules of water to the walls.  This attraction remains strong even despite small changes in volume( thus no change in the water level).

4. If an etched line were to be used instead of filling it the the brim, you would see a decreased level of water.

You've also forgotten about another major component of sea level rise: thermal expansion. Water expands as it heats up.

Thermal expansion also occurs in ice. Thus slightly warmer ice will expand taking up more volume than the warmer water.  Also warmer temperatures will evaporate more of the earth's oceans, where a significant amount will precipitate back on ice caps, glaciers and on land.

No, I'm saying I never mentioned glaciers.

So those quack proponents of global warming do not believe melting glaciers have no effect on water level?

See above. Volume doesn't affect the displacement of the water. Just how much ice is exposed at the surface.

It does since only 10% of ice is exposed to the surface for ice located in water.  However, 90% of those ice masses are located under.  Thus, volume displacement.

Former Vice President Al Gore. 'nough said.  The rise in temperatures is just a unique and temporary phenomena  that has been observed over the last two centuries.  It is not significant enough to affect polar ice caps on a global scale.  I remember one time scientists believed that the earth was experiencing global cooling.

Yet it is affecting the polar ice caps. This is simple observational fact. The polar ice caps have shown a definite warming trend.
[/quote]

Your key word here is trend.  Those quacks like extrapolating the temperature trend, despite any their lack of evidence that it will happen.  Extrapolation does not count as fact.  The current trend does not affect the polar ice caps significantly.  If the trend would continue over time or if the trend rate increases then yes, it would.

And you probably rememeber one or two scientists mention cooling because there was a cooling trend from the late 1940's through the early 70's. It was caused primarily by a sharp rise in the use of areosols -which have a net cooling effect- and other particulate pollutants, as well as an increase in volcanic activity and several other minor factors. However, a few members of the media blew the whole thing way out of proprtion, with Newsweek and National Geographic reporting that scienitsts had predicted an imminent ice age, which, of course, they hadn't.
[/quote]

That's the worst theory in the history of anything ever. You forgot about the ice that isn't floating on the ocean. What about all that ice covering Antarctica, eh? When the ice sheets around the edges melt (and they're melting much faster than expected) there'll be nothing to stop the ice covering the southern continent's surface from sliding into the ocean as well. And that will result in a sea level rise. Just drop a few ice cubes into a full glass of water and you'll see what I mean. Buoyancy and all that.

So you = fails at logics.

Actually Geo, the vast majority of the of the ice within the ice shelves are already below sea level. As we should know by now, this being the Flat Earth Society, the Ice Shelves rises only about 150 feet above sea level, terminating as a vertical front of ice at the coast. It's the Ice Wall described in the FAQ. Consult the expeditions of Sir James Clark Ross for a reference.

From http://www.asoc.org/general/iceshelve.htm

"The weight of Antarctica's ice is so enormous that it has literally pressed the continent two thirds of a mile (one kilometer) into the earth. Under the massive forces of their own weight, the ice sheets deform and drag themselves outward. Very large glaciers called ice streams flow through them continually, transporting ice from the center of the continent to the sea."

There we can see that the Ice Shelves extend one kilometer beneath sea level. Therefore, most of the Ice Shelves are already below sea level, less dense than the water which surrounds it.

materials contract in low temperatures, therefore as temperatures rise, water expands resulting in flooding

You are right about things contracting as they cool down. But because of water's polar nature when you slow it down enough to freeze similar poles in the water repel each other causing the ice to expand compared to the water.

Ok, let's try this one more time, since the last one didn't take.
Imagine a 1 m^3 block of ice thrown into the ocean. Because ice is less dense than water, only 90% of the block will be below sea level. This means the 1 m^3 block of ice will only displace .9 m^3 of liquid water. As it happens, ice expands by approximately 10% when it freezes, so when it thaws our 1 m^3 block will be reduced to 0.9 m^3 of liquid water, which is the amount displaced by the block in the first place. So a melting of sea ice will have no net effect on sea levels.

Now, I do admit that my simple experiment failed miserably. There wasn't any control over factors such as expansion of the container and evaporation. But whatevs.

Also warmer temperatures will evaporate more of the earth's oceans, where a significant amount will precipitate back on ice caps, glaciers and on land.

Sure will. And when temperatures reach a 'tipping point' where the rate of melting exceeds the rate of precipitation, sea levels will rise.

So those quack proponents of global warming do not believe melting glaciers have no effect on water level?

No, it just means that this particular quack proponent of global warming theory hadn't mentioned glaciers in the first place. Up to this point in the discussion I have said nothing about the glaciers' capacity to affect water levels.

Your key word here is trend.  Those quacks like extrapolating the temperature trend, despite any their lack of evidence that it will happen.  Extrapolation does not count as fact.  The current trend does not affect the polar ice caps significantly.  If the trend would continue over time or if the trend rate increases then yes, it would.

No, those quacks (also known as 'climae scientists') don't need to extrapolate a thing. The temperature rise isn't expected to happen, it has happened and is happening. Whether or not it will continue if emissions of GHG's are not slowed isn't even a point of contention.

And I should point out that you are failing miserably in the 'providing evidence that global warming isn't happening' department.

lol at this topic.

Here is an easy experiment for everybody to do.  Get a glass and put an ice block (or even several) in it.  Fill the glass exactly to the rim of the glass.  Put it in a warm spot, and leave it for the ice to melt.  Easy way of seeing which way the water goes.

The fact is that 100 ml of ice is the equivalent of 92 ml of water.

The fact is that 97% of Earth's water is in the oceans, and only 2% is in icecaps and glaciers.  Warm water expands, and that 97% of water expanding has a much more significant effect than that 2% of water decreasing in size by 8%, especially when not all of that 2% is below water anyway.

edit;  In fact ice is typically 90 percent below water, which means that when it melts, the water level doesn't change (based purely on the volume), because it floats at the same ratio as its density (obviously).

Quote from: Midnight on June 23, 2007, 04:28:25 AM

Not to mention the ocean IS rising. Oh wait.

Have any proof from sources that do not receive their funding from the Conspiracy or who are not quacks that believe in global warming.

This is nothing more than a blanket statement to avoid facing reality. Denial is not a weapon, it is a sickness.

Actually Geo, the vast majority of the of the ice within the ice shelves are already below sea level. As we should know by now, this being the Flat Earth Society, the Ice Shelves rises only about 150 feet above sea level, terminating as a vertical front of ice at the coast. It's the Ice Wall described in the FAQ. Consult the expeditions of Sir James Clark Ross for a reference.

If you want to read Sir James Clarke Ross' "Voyages", by all means do so. But remember, Tom Bishop has misquoted that book so many times, he got a beating at the "Voyage of James Clarke Ross" thread and elsewhere. Every claim Tom Bishop has made about James Clarke Ross has been shown to be false except the one about a 150 ft. wall all around Antartica. And he has not produced a single quote about this.

We all know that in some parts of Antartica there is a wall of 150 or so feet, but in the first volume of his voyages there is no mention that this is true everywhere he looked. You can confidently assume that the second volume has no such mention either.

You should assume everything Tom Bishop says about the voyages of James Clarke Ross is false because he did not read the books, he just browsed them in search of a few phrases he could misquote.

Whether water will rise or sink I don't see how cutting down on pollution is a bad thing

Yes, the truth is revealed. The government just wants us to believe in crap like this. FREEDOM!

Un-glaciated
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg
Ice Age
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicemap.jpg
The maps may not be scientific but it's still pretty cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

This Global Ocean Conveyor regulates Earth's temperature as well as carbon dioxide content.  And if you think this system will be shut down from melting polar ice caps you are dead wrong:


"Modelling suggests that increase of fresh water flows large enough to shut down the thermohaline circulation would be an order of magnitude greater than currently estimated to be occurring, and such increases are unlikely to become critical within the next hundred years."

lol at this topic.

Here is an easy experiment for everybody to do.  Get a glass and put an ice block (or even several) in it.  Fill the glass exactly to the rim of the glass.  Put it in a warm spot, and leave it for the ice to melt.  Easy way of seeing which way the water goes.

The fact is that 100 ml of ice is the equivalent of 92 ml of water.

The fact is that 97% of Earth's water is in the oceans, and only 2% is in icecaps and glaciers.  Warm water expands, and that 97% of water expanding has a much more significant effect than that 2% of water decreasing in size by 8%, especially when not all of that 2% is below water anyway.

edit;  In fact ice is typically 90 percent below water, which means that when it melts, the water level doesn't change (based purely on the volume), because it floats at the same ratio as its density (obviously).

Interesting point. Except, a possible global warming would only significantly affect the oceans surface.  This significant amount is insignificant in raising the sea level.

Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.

Point 1.  Global warming is bullshit, get over it.  It isn't real.

Point 2. If you really are FE'ers, shouldn't the warming cause falling sea levels, because the ice wall will melt and the oceans will flow off the side of the planet?

So you must be an FE'er cause you visited the site, right?

Point 1.  Global warming is bullshit, get over it.  It isn't real.

Point 2. If you really are FE'ers, shouldn't the warming cause falling sea levels, because the ice wall will melt and the oceans will flow off the side of the planet?

Point 1. Is dumb. You can't just flit about, willy nilly, claiming that things aren't real without some evidence to back it up. The world just doesn't work that way. So you fail.

At life.

Point 2. Isn't relevant, since we aren't talking about global warming on the FE here. We're talking about it on a RE.

Holy Shit!  Geo, I thought you were dead!

Am I not?

Well anyway, you didn't think I was gone for good did you? I wouldn't leave you to comabt the RE hordes alone now, would I? It just wouldn't be humane.

Maybe there is hope for the forum after all...