ans Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 At the time the ice is estimated to have been between 1,000 and 1,500m thick. I must admit I didn't think it was that deep but I'd still like to see some maths and figures that support the theory that sea levels will rise by 6.5m if the ice caps melt. I'm sure there must be something out there given it's such a widely quoted figure but I'm lacking in Google skills right now. Just that with the existing displacement of the water by the ice already, the reduction in volume and the sheer expanse of surface area, I'm struggling to accept the level rise would be that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 At the time the ice is estimated to have been between 1,000 and 1,500m thick. I must admit I didn't think it was that deep but I'd still like to see some maths and figures that support the theory that sea levels will rise by 6.5m if the ice caps melt. I'm sure there must be something out there given it's such a widely quoted figure but I'm lacking in Google skills right now. Just that with the existing displacement of the water by the ice already, the reduction in volume and the sheer expanse of surface area, I'm struggling to accept the level rise would be that high. I am still awaiting your reply to my post ans..... who said what about me on SW and how are you so sure of the facts? you must be sure of them in order to mention them...... I await names and comments. Please tell me what my "friends" on SW had to say about me..... I give you full permission to do so. You are not only lacking in google skills my friend or maths..... the world is going to change whether you like it or not.... live on rock and higher ground from now on. Drop an ice cube into a drink and see it expand very little in mass..... melt an iceberg and you will accumulate the mass you never see under water as the majority of one is based there..... taken from jakes stupid book of physical quotes Well ans?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 At the time the ice is estimated to have been between 1,000 and 1,500m thick. I must admit I didn't think it was that deep but I'd still like to see some maths and figures that support the theory that sea levels will rise by 6.5m if the ice caps melt. I'm sure there must be something out there given it's such a widely quoted figure but I'm lacking in Google skills right now. Just that with the existing displacement of the water by the ice already, the reduction in volume and the sheer expanse of surface area, I'm struggling to accept the level rise would be that high. Wiki says its 7.2 m! If the entire 2,85 million km³ of ice were to melt, global sea levels would rise 7,2 m (23.6 ft.)[iPCC, 2001]. Edited: to add the peer reviewed source of Wiki's information: HERE Their article on sea level rise also has information. It's wiki so its got to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt, but its a good first order source and these articles are pretty well referenced. If all glaciers and ice caps melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[3] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[4] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Drop an ice cube into a drink and see it expand very little in mass..... melt an iceberg and you will accumulate the mass you never see under water as the majority of one is based there..... taken from jakes stupid book of physical quotes Are you doing this on purpose? Water gains volume when it's frozen. So the displacement of a floating ice will create less volume in the water when it's defrosted. This is fairly basic physics once again, school level stuff. Besides this, we're not talking about melting iceburgs, we're talking about ice on the shelves, greenland and antarctica. They're not floating see, so aren't already displacing water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Ahh I see, I guess I hadn't really appreciated just how bloody big the Greenland ice sheet was. Thanks for the info. 61m is a hell of a rise yessir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whimsy Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 When are we going to have a smoking thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Ahh I see, I guess I hadn't really appreciated just how bloody big the Greenland ice sheet was. Thanks for the info. 61m is a hell of a rise yessir You are not as clever as you think ans...... please tell me what my friends from SW filled you in on..... you cannot make a statement without substantiating it, surely even you must know that. I still await. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 When are we going to have a smoking thread? That's local, not international news yessir... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Drop an ice cube into a drink and see it expand very little in mass..... melt an iceberg and you will accumulate the mass you never see under water as the majority of one is based there..... taken from jakes stupid book of physical quotes Are you doing this on purpose? Water gains volume when it's frozen. So the displacement of a floating ice will create less volume in the water when it's defrosted. This is fairly basic physics once again, school level stuff. Besides this, we're not talking about melting iceburgs, we're talking about ice on the shelves, greenland and antarctica. They're not floating see, so aren't already displacing water. Get an education slim..... an iceberg is a pretty big cooler in your drink..... density doesn't equate to mass..... now I know you are just being silly..... tell me once again what you do for a living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Water expands when it freezes - making it less dense than the water from which it freezes - the volume of ice is 9% greater (and its density 9% lower) than in the liquid water state. Therefore as icebergs (and ice shelves) float on the sea surface, they displace the same volume of water that they contain. So if any ice that already floats was to to melt, the sea level would stay exactly the same. You only get a sea level rise if ice that is not floating (i.e. lying on land) melts and runs off from the land it is sat on into the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Have a laugh..... http://www.nortest.ltd.uk/ IM engineering also..... but like ans has to say..... my friends from SW will always bug me.... he is so shallow he gets sucked up. Slim....... what do you do for a living? even if you empty bins..... you are credible in my eyes....... show a link to yourself, just for me. Well ans? I still await all the juicy gossip SW has offered you..... why the hell am I still waiting for your proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
integer Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Please, don't let this end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Water expands when it freezes - making it less dense than the water from which it freezes - the volume of ice is 9% greater (and its density 9% lower) than in the liquid water state. Therefore as icebergs (and ice shelves) float on the sea surface, they displace the same volume of water that they contain. So if any ice that already floats was to to melt, the sea level would stay exactly the same. You only get a sea level rise if ice that is not floating (i.e. lying on land) melts and runs off from the land it is sat on into the sea. Wrong Albert..... when Ice caps melt it affects the whole balance of mass.... why are we feeling increased weather and water levels we have to anticipate now..... maybe I assume all of this.... Ice floats on a mass..... it only becomes a mass when it melts and adds to the mass. Why the hell should we worry about the North and South caps melting if it doesn't make any difference? some mass is held above water..... when it melts you will know about it but it was going to happen one day anyway..... move to higher ground peeps. Some experts on here can give a gravitational weight and dimension to the future..... few can help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Get an education slim..... an iceberg is a pretty big cooler in your drink..... density doesn't equate to mass..... now I know you are just being silly..... tell me once again what you do for a living? Jake, you're really making a tit of yourself again. Density = mass/volume, which is what we're talking about, the difference in density between frozen water and thawed water. Try it yourself, it's easy to prove I'm right. Put an icecube in a glass of water. The ice melts and the water originally displaced by the ice is replaced with the thawed water minus a small amount because ice is less dense than thawed water. The water level will not rise. What's my occupation got to do with GCSE level basic physics? I've already posted where I work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Back on thread, I think it is to do with gays and lezzers not going to enough masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.