World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

[Siara]

since the mantle is mostly melton and the continents are lighter then the surrending ocean yes they are.

[wordless amazement] I should take a geology course at our community college.

[danielost]

[wordless amazement] I should take a geology course at our community college.

why? here!

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

[Siara]

why? here!

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

:) Thanks!

[IamsSon]

No they (obviously) receded and then went through cycles of growth and contraction. The problem is that what's happening now is outside the limits of this cycle. That's why we hear about people finding mammoths (and ancient humans) as well in areas that have melted. They've been there for 10,000 yrs and the now ice is melting to reveal them.

I heard that stuff about the Great Lakes moving south too. It's pretty weird isn't it? Please note that if this was happening because glaciers were retreating they'd be moving north.

How do we know what the "cycle" is? How can we be sure that everything occurring naturally occurs in cycles, or that we can discern those cycles well enough to determine an event is occurring outside a natural cycle?

Maybe this is part of a natural cycle that occurs every 4.7 billion years.

Edited January 19, 2010 by IamsSon

[Siara]

How do we know what the "cycle" is? How can we be sure that everything occurring naturally occurs in cycles, or that we can discern those cycles well enough to determine an event is occurring outside a natural cycle?

Maybe this is part of a natural cycle that occurs every 4.7 billion years.

They can tell from sediment layers. Ice bergs have little bits of plant life and so on in them. And when there isn't any ice of course there's a lot of plant stuff mixed in with the sediment.

I read something interesting on the Science Daily site that said that certain species in certain parts of the world that feed on plankton were eating a lot of material that was 7,000 years old because of glacier melt. I'll post the link if I can find it.

[Caesar]

I'm not sure why anyone would take what the IPCC says seriously unless its faith based not science!

Edited January 19, 2010 by Caesar

[Karlis]

The United Nations’ climate science panel has admitted that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Read more...

The article *does* state that this was an unfortunate error, and *does* state that much too much importance was originally attached to this prediction.

This article states that the prediction"... was not even based on a research paper – it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic."

Ok, everyone makes mistakes, and that is not the issue imo. The issue that concerns me is WHY did the Powers-That-Form-Public-Opinion jump on this theory so avidly? Why has it taken so long to admit the mistake?

[Science Geek]

What a terrible mistake.

[MedicTJ]

I'll reiterate the same thing I've said for a long time............

ANY scientist claiming that glacier melt and ice cap melt will lead to global flooding needs to be stripped of their degree.

Put two ice cubes in a glass. Then fill the glass up to the top with liquid water.

When those ice cubes melt.......if the glass overflows........you win.

The Earth is a container...just like a glass is. If the polar ice caps melt, the result of the runoff water will NOT cause the oceans to rise!

Displacement? YES. If....as had been warned about since time out of memory...California were to sink into the sea, water would simply fill the void left over. But what the mad scientists would have you believe is that the melting of the polar ice caps...and Greenland/iceland.......would inundate and flood the rest of the world.

NOT TRUE

[Saru]

Three threads merged on the same topic

[ExpandMyMind]

out of all of these posts i have yet to see one of our resident alarmists post their opinion on, well, what has turned out to be simply another scientists opinion, ... wonder why that is?

[IronGhost]

I'll reiterate the same thing I've said for a long time............

ANY scientist claiming that glacier melt and ice cap melt will lead to global flooding needs to be stripped of their degree.

Put two ice cubes in a glass. Then fill the glass up to the top with liquid water.

When those ice cubes melt.......if the glass overflows........you win.

The Earth is a container...just like a glass is. If the polar ice caps melt, the result of the runoff water will NOT cause the oceans to rise!

Displacement? YES. If....as had been warned about since time out of memory...California were to sink into the sea, water would simply fill the void left over. But what the mad scientists would have you believe is that the melting of the polar ice caps...and Greenland/iceland.......would inundate and flood the rest of the world.

NOT TRUE

Scienists have never claimed that.

They claim that ice melting off of LAND MASSES -- such as the ice on Greenland, and other places -- will make sea levels rise, and this has already happened. There are many areas now where rising water is swallowing up beachside homes and shorelines. Saw a story on the news the other day about a huge number of Australian homes near the sea, which now will soon be under the sea.

[MARAB0D]

I'll reiterate the same thing I've said for a long time............

ANY scientist claiming that glacier melt and ice cap melt will lead to global flooding needs to be stripped of their degree.

Put two ice cubes in a glass. Then fill the glass up to the top with liquid water.

When those ice cubes melt.......if the glass overflows........you win.

The Earth is a container...just like a glass is. If the polar ice caps melt, the result of the runoff water will NOT cause the oceans to rise!

Displacement? YES. If....as had been warned about since time out of memory...California were to sink into the sea, water would simply fill the void left over. But what the mad scientists would have you believe is that the melting of the polar ice caps...and Greenland/iceland.......would inundate and flood the rest of the world.

NOT TRUE

There is two ways for the ice to be located - in the water already or on the solid ground. Ice has density of 0.9, so it experiences Archimedes force, keeping 10% of its bulk ABOVE the level of water - when it melts its density becomes 1 again and the level has no changes to it. This is the case of the Arctic ice fields, if they melt we would not notice the level change.

When ice is on the solid ground, it is outside the "container" - but when/if it melts it enters this "container" and adds more water to it, hence the level must rise. This relates to ice caps, Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. The major meltdown of North American ice caps 12,000-14,000 years ago in two stages elevated the sea level at about 30 meters (100 ft) which event we call "Great Deluge" - and the total sea level rise since the end of Ice Age about 60,000 years ago delivered the sea level rise in excess of 110 m (330 ft), which then dropped about 10 m back. We are at the moment having sea level 100 m higher than it was during Ice Age, and our coastline is 20-50 kilometres deep into what then was inland. if you look at any modern bathymetry map, you would see all continental shelf was once a part of the continents.

[ExpandMyMind]

U.N. climate chiefs apologize for glacier error

(CNN) -- The U.N.'s leading panel on climate change has apologized for misleading data published in a 2007 report that warned Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

In a statement released Wednesday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said estimates relating to the rate of recession of the Himalayan glaciers in its Fourth Assessment Report were "poorly substantiated" adding that "well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/glacier.himalayas.ipcc.error/index.html?hpt=T2

they've been doing quite a bit of apologizing lately, with more to come i expect.

[MARAB0D]

U.N. climate chiefs apologize for glacier error

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/glacier.himalayas.ipcc.error/index.html?hpt=T2

they've been doing quite a bit of apologizing lately, with more to come i expect.

I have already worked out the temperature dependency graph - it represents the function in accordance to the following Climatic law: "The number of climate-related apologies is reverse proportional to the real life temperature changes, lowering the temperatures indicate increase in apologies".

[ExpandMyMind]

[Karlis]

Scienists have never claimed that.

They claim that ice melting off of LAND MASSES -- such as the ice on Greenland, and other places -- will make sea levels rise, and this has already happened. There are many areas now where rising water is swallowing up beachside homes and shorelines. Saw a story on the news the other day about a huge number of Australian homes near the sea, which now will soon be under the sea.

Hi IronGhost, I could sell you a bridge in good working condition. People pay a toll for using it, so it could be a nice investment. Interested? Edited January 21, 2010 by Karlis

[danielost]

Scienists have never claimed that.

They claim that ice melting off of LAND MASSES -- such as the ice on Greenland, and other places -- will make sea levels rise, and this has already happened. There are many areas now where rising water is swallowing up beachside homes and shorelines. Saw a story on the news the other day about a huge number of Australian homes near the sea, which now will soon be under the sea.

australia is probable the only major land mass that will feel the full force of sea rise. since as far as i know they dont have any major glaciers.

Edited January 21, 2010 by danielost

[Siara]

Put two ice cubes in a glass. Then fill the glass up to the top with liquid water.

When those ice cubes melt.......if the glass overflows........you win.

The Earth is a container...just like a glass is. If the polar ice caps melt, the result of the runoff water will NOT cause the oceans to rise!

A better analogy would be to fill the glass half way full, hold ice cubes inside the glass but above the water level, and then drop them in the water. Does the water level rise? Yup. The volume inside the glass hasn't changed but H2O contained in the ice is now displacing water instead of air.

The fact that the melted glaciers no longer displace air is irrelevant to this issue.

.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Siara

[ExpandMyMind]

A better analogy would be to fill the glass half way full, hold ice cubes inside the glass but above the water level, and then drop them in the water. Does the water level rise? Yup. The volume inside the glass hasn't changed but H2O contained in the ice is now displacing water instead of air.

The fact that the melted ice bergs no longer displace air is irrelevant to this issue. We aren't worried that earth's atmosphere is going to get so clogged with ice bergs that we can't breath.

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.

Edited January 21, 2010 by expandmymind

[Siara]

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]

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 January 21, 2010 by expandmymind

[danielost]

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 January 21, 2010 by danielost

[ExpandMyMind]

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]

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.