Question on polar ice caps

[Joep]

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the mass of an object in a body of water is displaced when emersed. For example, if an ice cube is in a glass of water, the ice melts but does NOT raise the water level in the glass when it does. This means if the ice at the Earth’s poles melting wouldn’t raise the sea levels on Earth. I understand that fluids (gasses and liquids) expand when raised in temperature, but would a warmer ocean by 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit cause entire floods?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elfy]

Not all the melting Ice is in ice bergs. A lot of it is in glaciers and other ice on land, as that melts it cracks, breaks off and drops into the oceans which raises the water level.

[Joep]

Not all the melting Ice is in ice bergs. A lot of it is in glaciers and other ice on land, as that melts it cracks, breaks off and drops into the oceans which raises the water level.

Would that get displaced when it rains and freezes again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Elfy]

I think the issue is with rising temperatures it won't refreeze.

[AbabeBill]

As Elfy pointed out, there are huge amounts of water locked up in ice. Ice, which is above sea level. For example, the continent of Antarctica, which is the highest continent on earth, with an average height of over 8,000 ft. It has over 6.4 million cubic miles of ice. That ice represents, about 90% of the earths fresh water! Just imagine, a small fraction of that ice melting away, into the oceans. That melting ice, can translate into large displacements of ocean water, or rise in current sea levels. 

[Stroller]

...and my house is less than 10 metres above sea level.  I'm not an expert on US geography, but if the Jersey Shore is a sea shore, then AbabeBill could need to order a snorkel as well as me.

[Joep]

As Elfy pointed out, there are huge amounts of water locked up in ice. Ice, which is above sea level. For example, the continent of Antarctica, which is the highest continent on earth, with an average height of over 8,000 ft. It has over 6.4 million cubic miles of ice. That ice represents, about 90% of the earths fresh water! Just imagine, a small fraction of that ice melting away, into the oceans. That melting ice, can translate into large displacements of ocean water, or rise in current sea levels. 

If the ice caps are frozen then the water is already displaced, and I believe NASA has report millions of tones of net gain in ice at the ice caps. So let’s say glaciers slowly thaw into rivers, keep in mind rivers typically bleed into oceans. Wouldn’t that suggest a near zero sum gain, or just homeostasis of the earth as usual?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AbabeBill]

44 minutes ago, Stroller said:

...and my house is less than 10 metres above sea level.  I'm not an expert on US geography, but if the Jersey Shore is a sea shore, then AbabeBill could need to order a snorkel as well as me.

Lol, let’s just say, your diapers are going to be soaked, before you put them on. 

The highest point in my town, is 23 ft.(7m). And, I’m not near the highest point! I’m more like 13ft. (About 4 meters). 

[Stroller]

There's also plenty of geological evidence that sea levels relative to land shores are higher when the ice caps are smaller. Go check it out.

[Bettypooh]

When land-based ice enters water it begins melting. And ice is full of freeze-locked air so it is buoyant with some of it above the water level. The cause isn't relevant in this- the effect is the same regardless of the cause. On top of this is the fact that many coastal areas are actually sinking in relation to the main land mass they are a part of. After the Tohoku earthquake in Japan many areas on Honshu sank up to one meter with some then rising to exceed their original elevation and others not.

I've not researched it deeply but in what I've found based on the current trends and probable future, the seas will be rising for many decades to come and that will be from 1/3m to over 1m according to whose data you have at hand. Coupled with sinking land there are several coastal cities that will lose much of their area to the seas. While a small rise in sea level may seem insignificant, it can greatly affect flooding patterns when storms strike those affected areas magnifying the effects we feel. Seacoasts have always been ever-changing throughout all of history so those who live there have always been at risk of loss. It's just part of living with nature.

Bettypooh

[Dubious]

On 2/7/2019 at 4:44 PM, Stroller said:

...and my house is less than 10 metres above sea level.  I'm not an expert on US geography, but if the Jersey Shore is a sea shore, then AbabeBill could need to order a snorkel as well as me.

They have predicted that California will be under water at some point, but don't remember what time period 

 

[PP Rebel]

Main concerns centre on the thick ice sheets which are sitting on landmasses,principally Greenland & Antarctica which on melting will definitely raise sea levels.
But there are related runaway climate factors because white surfaces are good at reflecting the suns rays back into space. So less ice & snow more absorption of suns rays..the more the planet will heat up.
There's also apparently large amount of methane gas locked in the arctic tundra permafrost which is a much more serious greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide & is now getting released in larger & larger amounts.
Sudden changes in climate mean huge areas of tress & vegetation, which are good at absorbing carbon from the atmosphere & locking it away, may die off & it will be a while before new species establish themselves.Also issues with the sea becoming more acidic because it will absorb more carbon dioxide effecting marine vegetation.Not to mention the way our oceans are being poisoned by all our plastic waste & the impact on marine ecosystems.
Finally through complete madness we've gone & built around 400 operating nuclear power plants located on coasts & river estuaries because they use water as a coolant, This has to be pumped round the sealed reactor cores & flooding means many more potential Fukushima type disasters  Each reactor takes between 30 & 100  years to turn off & decommission .Then the reactor cores are supposed to be encased in concrete sarcophagi, needing regular maintenance, for tens of thousands of years. What the result of so much deadly radioactive material potentially leaking out into the environment would be anybodies guess but I don't see it ending well. 

[Joep]

Main concerns centre on the thick ice sheets which are sitting on landmasses,principally Greenland & Antarctica which on melting will definitely raise sea levels.
But there are related runaway climate factors because white surfaces are good at reflecting the suns rays back into space. So less ice & snow more absorption of suns rays..the more the planet will heat up.
There's also apparently large amount of methane gas locked in the arctic tundra permafrost which is a much more serious greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide & is now getting released in larger & larger amounts.
Sudden changes in climate mean huge areas of tress & vegetation, which are good at absorbing carbon from the atmosphere & locking it away, may die off & it will be a while before new species establish themselves.Also issues with the sea becoming more acidic because it will absorb more carbon dioxide effecting marine vegetation.Not to mention the way our oceans are being poisoned by all our plastic waste & the impact on marine ecosystems.
Finally through complete madness we've gone & built around 400 operating nuclear power plants located on coasts & river estuaries because they use water as a coolant, This has to be pumped round the sealed reactor cores & flooding means many more potential Fukushima type disasters  Each reactor takes between 30 & 100  years to turn off & decommission .Then the reactor cores are supposed to be encased in concrete sarcophagi, needing regular maintenance, for tens of thousands of years. What the result of so much deadly radioactive material potentially leaking out into the environment would be anybodies guess but I don't see it ending well. 

1. Nuclear plants don’t melt ice caps
2. We have the most trees there’s ever been in the last 100 years which is why California has been prone to wildfires. Too much dry vegetation to prevent wildfires (even though they happen naturally)
3. There’s been less snow due to the amount of concrete, asphalt, and buildings we’ve constructed which trap heat and reflect sunlight which typically disperse rain and snow showers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PP Rebel]

8 hours ago, Joep said:

1. Nuclear plants don’t melt ice caps
2. We have the most trees there’s ever been in the last 100 years which is why California has been prone to wildfires. Too much dry vegetation to prevent wildfires (even though they happen naturally)
3. There’s been less snow due to the amount of concrete, asphalt, and buildings we’ve constructed which trap heat and reflect sunlight which typically disperse rain and snow showers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Correct Nuclear power plants don't melt ice caps .. but nuclear fuel, reactor cores & spent fuel rods are highly toxic due to the dangerous levels of radioactive emissions....They are mostly located on the coast or river estuaries . Sudden rises in sea level & extreme weather events puts site safety at risk...There's a potential for many more Fukushima type disasters which would make it much more difficult for life on earth to bounce back.
2.Trees help to offset rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide & hence climate change... Different species of trees & plants have evolved to live in different climates. & many are vulnerable to climate changes....Some ecosystems such as Australian Eucalyptus forests have evolved so forest fires are a natural part of their life cycle & recover quickly from forest fires but others do not .. . Agree human activities such as slash & burn agriculture  has been destroying forests at a prodigious rate & is a major factor.
3.  Concrete, asphalt, and buildings, reflect increased human activity, replace trees & plants contributing to increases in atmospheric CO2  . They also increase the rate of run off from rain & melting snow creating issues with flash flooding...Cities tend to be warmer than the surrounding countryside  & consequently less snow on the ground ..But I'm not sure how significant all this is in comparison to the effects of shrinking of the polar ice caps, destruction of rain forests & climate change generated extreme weather events.

 

[Bettypooh]

Whatever the cause may be, there's no denying that the polar ice is shrinking and that it will raise sea levels. Even if we could pinpoint the human-caused parts of the problem and change them 100%, that will not immediately end the effect. Nor will it reverse it immedately either. Pretty much all the scientists and climatologists agree that it takes a global-wide change of a few degrees to cause major changes in the global climate and most of them agree we're at that point now. It's also clear that nature causes temperature variations cyclically so if that's the main cause of what we're seeing we aren't going to be able to do much about it.

You can stand at a cliff without problems. You can lean forward there without problems. But if you lean too far nothing short of a full-scale miracle will stop your fall and there's only luck left to determine the chances of your survival. We humans are at that cliff's edge and we are leaning. I'm not sure how far we've leaned but I am sure that we'd be smarter if we would try leaning back some

Bettypooh

[PP Rebel]

18 hours ago, Bettypooh said:

Whatever the cause may be, there's no denying that the polar ice is shrinking and that it will raise sea levels. Even if we could pinpoint the human-caused parts of the problem and change them 100%, that will not immediately end the effect. Nor will it reverse it immedately either. Pretty much all the scientists and climatologists agree that it takes a global-wide change of a few degrees to cause major changes in the global climate and most of them agree we're at that point now. It's also clear that nature causes temperature variations cyclically so if that's the main cause of what we're seeing we aren't going to be able to do much about it.

You can stand at a cliff without problems. You can lean forward there without problems. But if you lean too far nothing short of a full-scale miracle will stop your fall and there's only luck left to determine the chances of your survival. We humans are at that cliff's edge and we are leaning. I'm not sure how far we've leaned but I am sure that we'd be smarter if we would try leaning back some

Bettypooh

Agree Bettypooh. As I understand it serious analysts have no doubt the current long term trend is for global temperatures to rise & the polar ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate & this is in turn leading to rises in sea levels.
Human activity & the changes we've been making to the planetary ecosphere are a contributing factor & trying to counter the long term trend is a bit like turning around a massive oil tanker which is going a full speed. It will take concerted effects & ages before an effective change of course takes place.
Trying to precisely understand what is going on is a complex problem. Some experts believe changes are occurring at a solar / cosmic level & claim polar icecaps are also shrinking on other planets in the solar system.While others point to fluctuations in the Earth's mantle & magnetic field.
Even between the experts who think its a predominantly a man made phenomenon there are a wide range of predictions about the overall effects, Some believe the rise in sea level will be a relatively  easy to manage couple of inches over the next century while other's believe it's all over bar the shouting & most coastal towns & cities will underwater by 2030.

[Joep]

Citations please, and these predictions at reminiscent of Al Gore in the early 200s claiming the earth will be a desolate wasteland by 2010 or more recently Alexandria Ocasio Cortez claiming the earth will end in 12 years. It sounds so senseless and I can say with certainty that none of those predictions account for research currently being conducted or conservation protocols in use right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PP Rebel]

 

 

 

[PP Rebel]

 

 

[PP Rebel]

 

There's a longer video on you tube entitled 'Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb' which goes into these issues in more details. I find it all very scary because these arguments are logical & make perfect sense to me. I don't know whether all this is going to happen for real rather than being just a theoretical model / construct in peoples heads . I'm  no expert on the subject,  just a guy who enjoys shitting himself & likes to try & get to the bottom of things.
I think our centrist politicians are trying to develop a consensus approach to global warming & climate change based on what credible experts are saying, not panicking ordinary people & what they can get the worlds power elites to agree to do.
The notion of a scientific consensus is grossly exaggerated but some of the dire warning have enough weight to them to make mainstream politicians feel they need to cover their backs & to be seen to be trying to do something about it. (hence attempts to silence experts who are muddying the water & saying contradictory things they don't want people to hear).

[littleTomás]

Here's a great experiment that can demonstrate sea level rise. Take a plastic cup and fill it up 3/4 of the way with water. Freeze the cup to turn the water into ice. Fill up a liquid measuring cup halfway with water and place the cube in the cup. Take note of the water level. Place the measuring cup in a warm place, but away from light to minimize evaporation because in real life evaporated water will just end up back in the ocean again. You will find that the water level increased when all the ice melted despite the fact that ice is less dense than water. If you would like a more in-depth explanation of the physics behind this, feel free to message me. I love physics.

[Bettypooh]

19 hours ago, Joep said:

Citations please, and these predictions at reminiscent of Al Gore in the early 200s claiming the earth will be a desolate wasteland by 2010 or more recently Alexandria Ocasio Cortez claiming the earth will end in 12 years. It sounds so senseless and I can say with certainty that none of those predictions account for research currently being conducted or conservation protocols in use right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I've found is easy to find- generally news reports and articles which had the backing of well known institutions. I didn't go looking for any of it nor am I going to. It doesn't much matter to me personally anyway. Nobody can offer conclusive proof with the matter so why argue it? And it seems by your references that you're reading something political into this which is a BS approach- the people you cite are politicians who are no more qualified than you or me to state something as fact, so it's all just opinion at this point and those will always differ. Politics has nothing to do with this until someone can come up with solid verifiable and incontestable proof which at best is still years away if it can ever be done.

The truth is that right now nobody knows for sure what is going to happen and to what level we have and can influence it. Even the most respected scientists are all over the map with this and neither you or I can do any better than them.

Bettypooh

[Diapered Jason]

On 2/8/2019 at 4:49 PM, Joep said:

1. Nuclear plants don’t melt ice caps
2. We have the most trees there’s ever been in the last 100 years which is why California has been prone to wildfires. Too much dry vegetation to prevent wildfires (even though they happen naturally)
3. There’s been less snow due to the amount of concrete, asphalt, and buildings we’ve constructed which trap heat and reflect sunlight which typically disperse rain and snow showers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Joep we know who you are, you can stop trolling by changing the subject and saying whatever nonsense you find on the internet. Everything you have said so far takes an argumentative posture and you have done this before. If you really wanted to learn about climate change you wouldn't be here since most people here are not scientists.

[Joep]

What I've found is easy to find- generally news reports and articles which had the backing of well known institutions. I didn't go looking for any of it nor am I going to. It doesn't much matter to me personally anyway. Nobody can offer conclusive proof with the matter so why argue it? And it seems by your references that you're reading something political into this which is a BS approach- the people you cite are politicians who are no more qualified than you or me to state something as fact, so it's all just opinion at this point and those will always differ. Politics has nothing to do with this until someone can come up with solid verifiable and incontestable proof which at best is still years away if it can ever be done.
The truth is that right now nobody knows for sure what is going to happen and to what level we have and can influence it. Even the most respected scientists are all over the map with this and neither you or I can do any better than them.
Bettypooh

My original arguments are based in physics, I.e. water displacement, the water cycle, heat transfer, unfortunately I don’t get to decide what is political that would be the media and this issue has been political since the 90’s. Also consensus does not equate to scientific fact. I don’t consider skepticism on this issue radical or obscene like flat earthers. I also think it is important to assume in any political discussion that both sides of the issue mean well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Joep we know who you are, you can stop trolling by changing the subject and saying whatever nonsense you find on the internet. Everything you have said so far takes an argumentative posture and you have done this before. If you really wanted to learn about climate change you wouldn't be here since most people here are not scientists.

Hey Jason my intent of this thread was a discussion or dialogue of sorts. None of this was made with the intentions of becoming personal and I certainly don’t want this to start now. Hostility is the last thing I want in any discussion political or otherwise. I also think that rhetorical discourse can be civil and polite. If I failed to do that then sure call me out on it. I figured this topic would be interesting to share opinions and see where they line up with other opinions. I think we actually have some common ground on the issue. None of us are sure what the future holds and we all have ideas of what could be done for it. I don’t have anything against anyone on this thread. So at the end of the day it’s good to shake hands and separate the person from the opinion

-Joep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PP Rebel]

 I've exhausted all I want to say here ..to come back  to the original point ..hope there's now no doubt in the mind of anyone who is reading this thread why the melting of polar ice caps leads to rises in sea levels globally.. the rate of rise & possible knock on effects including runaway climate change is open to debate...As Jason has pointed out there's a lot of material produced by scientists & climate specialists elsewhere on the internet.. I've provided a few links to videos which feature people who are much better qualified to comment than me.. I don't know for certain if what the doom merchants are predicting is going to happen ..I hope it doesn't .. but hopefully its satisfied everyone what I've posted here is based on some serious stuff I've looked at & I haven't been making it all up.