ai_Droid Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Turns out the IPCC got it drastically wrong on Artic ice melt. The melt this year was significantly worse than even they projected: Revisions of predictions going by the current rate of melt would result in sea rises of 5 meters this century. That puts Strand Street under water in the next 90 years. If the IPCC's alarming warnings were all underated, things could be a lot more serious than were previously thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 To put it in perspective: Beeb flash image of retreat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 That puts Strand Street under water in the next 90 years. Not all bad news then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopsticks Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Possibly a good time to start investing in land up Snaefell then? "UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY! WE'RE ALL FUCKED BUT THAT'S NO REASON NOT TO MAKE A FEW QUID!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Rising sea levels, just the right time for the DOT to claim ownership of the Tower of Refuge and spend a load of our money on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 That puts Strand Street under water in the next 90 years. Not all bad news then. Hooray, no more 'meanderers' ...so do we have enough time to build a 6m high wall around the IoM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 The sea ice has no effect on sea levels if it melts - it's only when ice on land melts and runs into the sea that causes sea levels to rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Surely the portion above the waterline would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Surely the portion above the waterline would? Get yourself a glass of water - add ice - and measure the water level. Check the level after the ice melts and - voila! ...the same level. Physics 101. I have posted about this before... 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...
cheeky boy Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 What a relief ! So thats only Antarctica we have to worry about Apparently the Polar Bears are going to be saved by a crack squad from Foxes Glacier Mints But what about the Penguins ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 What a relief ! So thats only Antarctica we have to worry about Apparently the Polar Bears are going to be saved by a crack squad from Foxes Glacier Mints But what about the Penguins ? McVitie's are gonna p-p-p-pick up them. Therefore as icebergs (and ice shelves) float on the sea surface, they displace the same volume of water that they contain. Of course, silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.