81 replies to this topic

[Siara]

expandmymind, on 21 January 2010 - 02:47 PM, said:

i would have to say his analogy would be better - when talking about the polar ice caps melting that is.

as a couple of people have already stated in this thread, the reason sea levels would rise is down to the ice located on land masses melting away, running into rivers and then the sea, adding volume. volume would remain the same if only the ice caps melted.

But the Antarctic ice cap is over land (a significant part of it).  When they generate pictures of Antarctica without it's ice there's a land mass there.  Is that land below sea level?

[ExpandMyMind]

Siara, on 21 January 2010 - 03:12 PM, said:

But the Antarctic ice cap is over land (a significant part of it).  When they generate pictures of Antarctica without it's ice there's a land mass there.  Is that land below sea level?

i believe it's a couple of km below sea level. to be honest i hadn't thought about the land mass under it. not sure if the sea levels would rise though because the ice is already a part of the existing volume, is it not?

Edited by expandmymind, 21 January 2010 - 03:49 PM.

[danielost]

expandmymind, on 21 January 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

i believe it's a couple of km below sea level. to be honest i hadn't thought about the land mass under it. not sure if the sea levels would rise though because the ice is already a part of the existing volume, is it not?

as that ice melts the land under it will rise. and no it isn't below sea lvl.  if it was the glaciers wouldn't be flowing into the ocean.  although when it melts the ocean lvls will rise some because of it.  since as stated most of it is on land.

Edited by danielost, 21 January 2010 - 04:00 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

danielost, on 21 January 2010 - 03:59 PM, said:

as that ice melts the land under it will rise. and no it isn't below sea lvl.  if it was the glaciers wouldn't be flowing into the ocean.  although when it melts the ocean lvls will rise some because of it.  since as stated most of it is on land.

that land would take thousands of years to rise and siara wasn't talking about the ice being under sea level, but the land mass of antarctica, which of course is under sea level.

[MARAB0D]

expandmymind, on 21 January 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

i believe it's a couple of km below sea level. to be honest i hadn't thought about the land mass under it. not sure if the sea levels would rise though because the ice is already a part of the existing volume, is it not?

Antarctic is up to several km above the sea level. It is a vast continent, and most of the ice there is in constant movement, freezing at the polar area and then slowly sliding down into the ocean and forming icebergs. If it melts the sea level may change in dozens of metres.

[ExpandMyMind]

marabod, on 21 January 2010 - 05:28 PM, said:

Antarctic is up to several km above the sea level. It is a vast continent, and most of the ice there is in constant movement, freezing at the polar area and then slowly sliding down into the ocean and forming icebergs. If it melts the sea level may change in dozens of metres.

so the land mass of antarctica is several km above sea level? i thought the land mass was mainly under sea level, under the ice, therefore most of the ice would already be part of the volume of the oceans.

i guess i must have gotten myself mixed up somewhere along the line. if so, apologies to siara and daniel.

[MARAB0D]

expandmymind, on 21 January 2010 - 05:38 PM, said:

so the land mass of antarctica is several km above sea level? i thought the land mass was mainly under sea level, under the ice, therefore most of the ice would already be part of the volume of the oceans.

i guess i must have gotten myself mixed up somewhere along the line. if so, apologies to siara and daniel.

but the land mass under the sea level is usually called "sea bottom"

[ExpandMyMind]

marabod, on 21 January 2010 - 08:45 PM, said:

but the land mass under the sea level is usually called "sea bottom"

i was thinking of antarctica as britain was during the last ice age, with masses of ice weighing down the land mass that is now britain. i'm still not sure how the melting of ice which is largely already under water could add to the volume of the ocean.

but like i said before, i must be missing something really obvious.   lol

[MARAB0D]

expandmymind, on 21 January 2010 - 09:22 PM, said:

i was thinking of antarctica as britain was during the last ice age, with masses of ice weighing down the land mass that is now britain. i'm still not sure how the melting of ice which is largely already under water could add to the volume of the ocean.

but like i said before, i must be missing something really obvious.   lol

This would clarify:

Quote

Terrain: about 98% thick continental ice sheet and 2% barren rock, with average elevations between 2,000 and 4,000 meters; mountain ranges up to nearly 5,000 meters; ice-free coastal areas include parts of southern Victoria Land, Wilkes Land, the Antarctic Peninsula area, and parts of Ross Island on McMurdo Sound; glaciers form ice shelves along about half of the coastline, and floating ice shelves constitute 11% of the area of the continent

http://www.indexmund...ca/terrain.html

These 11% of floating ice shelves won't affect the sea level - but the rest is not in water, but above the ground. As soon as this ice is not immersed yet, it is not displacing water but if it even slides into the sea without melting, we would have a great deluge.

[danielost]

expandmymind, on 21 January 2010 - 04:11 PM, said:

that land would take thousands of years to rise and siara wasn't talking about the ice being under sea level, but the land mass of antarctica, which of course is under sea level.

antarctica is not anymore below sea lvl than greenland is.  antarctica has mountians and valleys and rivers(ice) and even volcanos which seem to be waking up.


as far as the land rising.  it will rise as fast as the ice on it melts.  since it is the ice that is wieghing it down.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Glaciers melt at different rates depending on how sheltered they are. Also they take a long time to "react" to warmer conditions. Infact  the estimates from the NSF are that it would take somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years for antarctica to respond to the global warming we are feeling now. Yet a small mountain glacier would feel the effects somewhere between 100-1,000 years.

Edited by Professor GlenBoy, 22 January 2010 - 02:59 AM.

[ExpandMyMind]

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

Quote

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz0dYCZk2K7

i wonder just how much junk science is in there?

[Tsukasa]

Emma_Acid, on 19 January 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

Not this drastically they haven't.

Climate can change quite drastically in a century on its own.

http://www.esd.ornl....en/transit.html

All that without the help of humans. hmmmm.

Edit.
Some information on Antarctica.

http://en.wikipedia....rtica#Geography

And some information on the Himalayas.

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

Edited by Tsukasa, 24 January 2010 - 06:29 PM.

[Cadetak]

eqgumby, on 19 January 2010 - 04:41 PM, said:

Photoshop.

Photoshop? Pfft...

...It's obviously a left wing conspiracy. They took flamethrowers up there, melted everything, just so they can take everybody's money.

[IamsSon]

Quote

Climategate: The Wheels Come Off for the IPCC
Back in December 2009, Madhav Khandekar, in a guest posting on the blog of Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., questioned the IPCC AR4 report’s conclusion that glaciers in the Himalayas — vital to the water supply of the whole Ganges Valley — would disappear by 2035. (This was first reported by PJM on December 1.) The problem was that this really couldn’t be verified in the “peer-reviewed” literature. In fact, as it was investigated, it looked more and more suspicious.

Bad enough.What had been revealed was that the IPCC had put this inflammatory (and physically impossible) date into the IPCC report, even though it hadn’t been peer-reviewed and couldn’t actually be sourced to anything more than an offhand remark in a casual phone interview.

The IPCC’s problem is that it wasn’t the last issue. One of the effects of the Climategate files has been that a lot of complaints that had been dismissed by the scientific world and the world at large as unbelievable and perhaps even a little paranoid turned out to be true. Some of those complaints had to be taken seriously, and the IPCC’s reports had to be re-evaluated.

One question was whether anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was causing more violent storms and more storm damage. This had been received wisdom in the AR4 report; Time connected AGW to the damage from Katrina in 2005, and similar things were reported throughout the mainstream media.

Only it turns out that was no better sourced than “2035″ had been. In fact, as Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has documented extensively, the original AR3 and AR4 reports also depended on non-peer-reviewed material to infer that storms were stronger and causing more damage than in the past, thanks in large part to AGW. In fact, as Roger Pielke, Jr. puts it, the treatment of the effect of AGW on storm damage reveals:

[T]he systematic misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change in major science assessments. … [T]here is a pattern of behavior taking place in this community that should be of concern to anyone who cares about the integrity of science, regardless of their position on climate policies and politics.

Full article