Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.

Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.

And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the glass
first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.

You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume. But it doesn't hurt half so much as
the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers
melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if
glacial melting of land ice speeds up.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.

Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.

And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the glass
first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.

You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume. But it doesn't hurt half so much as
the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers
melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if
glacial melting of land ice speeds up.

The problem, as usual, lies in a tendency to exaggerate - on both sides.
"The most recent example of this sequence of claim and counter-claim focused
on the Greenland ice sheet. The melting of ice around south-east Greenland
accelerated in the early part of this decade, leading to reports that
scientists had underestimated the speed of warming in this region. Recent
measurements, reported in Science magazine last week[1], show that the
speed-up has stopped across the region. This has been picked up on the
climate sceptics' websites. Again, natural variability has been ignored in
order to support a particular point of view, with climate change advocates
leaping on the acceleration to further their cause and the climate change
sceptics now using the slowing down to their own benefit. Neither group is
right and all that is achieved is greater confusion among the public. What
is true is that there will always be natural variability in the amount of
ice around Greenland and that as our climate continues to warm, the
long-term reduction in the ice sheet is inevitable." - Dr Vicky Pope, Met
Office Head of Climate Change.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20090211.html

[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../323/5913/458a

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.

Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.

And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the
glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.

You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume.

Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try
dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.

But it doesn't hurt half so much as
the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers
melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if
glacial melting of land ice speeds up.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 2, 2:31*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. * That's called archidmedes principal. *The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.

Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.

And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the
glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.

You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume.

Don't you even sanity check your posts? *That's a pretty wild claim. *Try
dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.

It must be obvious to all but the most disingenuous denialist that
Martin has merely expressed himself badly. I saw immediately what he
meant by 3% and would not have noticed his odd-wording until serial
quibbler Bilbo jumped on it.

But it doesn't hurt half so much as
the overall expansion of the bulk sea water as it warms or land glaciers
melting. Greenland has the potential for being a real nuisance if
glacial melting of land ice speeds up.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.
And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the
glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume.

Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim. Try
dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.

You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When
floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more
volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps
have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.

The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as
fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube
on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.

Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again
shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake
the real world to match their delusional beliefs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 3, 2:54*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. * That's called archidmedes principal. *The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
Dittoheads don't do science.
When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.
And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the
glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume.

Don't you even sanity check your posts? *That's a pretty wild claim. *Try
dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.

You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When
floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more
volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps
have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.

The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as
fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube
on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.

Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again
shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake
the real world to match their delusional beliefs.

If you realise that Bilbo likely knows more than any of the other
denialists here, you can understand the frustration of those of us who
understand there is a problem.

On Nov 3, 11:00*am, "John M." wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:54*am, Martin Brown
wrote:



Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. * That's called archidmedes principal. *The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.
Dittoheads don't do science.
When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water.. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.
And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the
glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume.

Don't you even sanity check your posts? *That's a pretty wild claim.. *Try
dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.

You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When
floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more
volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps
have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.

The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as
fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube
on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.

Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again
shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake
the real world to match their delusional beliefs.

If you realise that Bilbo likely knows more than any of the other
denialists here, you can understand the frustration of those of us who
understand there is a problem.

•• Yeaaaah! YOU have a problem — a really
really big one. You have zero proof of your
thesis. None of those models can cope with
reality and none of your so called scientists
have ventured out into the cold.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one
single millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal.
The ice contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced
an amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will
show this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of
water. Or melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each
case the water that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact
water always spills over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.
And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the
glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice
cold *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume.

Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim.
Try dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.

You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When
floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more
volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps
have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.

How else do you interpret "total oceanic volume"? Words have meaning.
Your statement infers the ocean would increase in volume by 3% when a
cubic meter of ice melts. Is it really me that needs to "pay attention",
or you?

The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as
fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube
on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.

I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.

Attacking the messenger does not help. Dittohead science is once again
shown to be a pack of lies. And then dittoheads jump in to try and fake
the real world to match their delusional beliefs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:01:54 -0600, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:54:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:20:40 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one
single millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal.
The ice contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.
Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced
an amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will
show this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of
water. Or melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each
case the water that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact
water always spills over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.
And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the
glass first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.
You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice
cold *brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

The ice displaces its own *WEIGHT* of water which when floating in ice
cold brine is 0.972 cm^3. When it melts its maximum density as cold
fresh water is ~1.000 g/cm^3 is reached at 4C. And at all other
temperatures it occupies a greater volume.

So every cubic metre of floating ice that melts creates a roughly 3%
increase in total oceanic volume.

Don't you even sanity check your posts? That's a pretty wild claim.
Try dimensional analysis - it will usually catch that kind of faux pas.

You really should pay more attention. There is no mistake here. When
floating sea ice melts the result is that it occupies about 3% more
volume than it displaced when it was a solid. My phrasing could perhaps
have been more precise to avoid wilful misinterpretation by dittoheads.

How else do you interpret "total oceanic volume"? Words have meaning.
Your statement infers the ocean would increase in volume by 3% when a
cubic meter of ice melts. Is it really me that needs to "pay attention",
or you?

The density of the cold brine seawater matters and it is not the same as
fresh water. It would be a lot more obvious if you floated an ice cube
on a pool of mercury and then let it melt.

I know what you meant to say. I commented on what you actually said.


Did he say anything to convince you that
freezing bursts pipes all the time?

All ice should be considered fresh water ice,
which has been claimed as having 10 ninths the
volume of water, but is more like 997/917 when
changing from 25 C to minus 10 C.

How (floating) melting ice is supposed to cause
any expansion in ocean water is a mystery to me.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:22:32 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:36 am, wrote:

Incidently if an iceberg melts it doesn't raise sea levels one single
millionth of a meter. That's called archidmedes principal. The ice
contracts as it melts and so the level can't change.

Idiot. Learn some science before posting to science oriented NGs.

Dittoheads don't do science.

When the iceberg left the land and entered the ocean, it displaced an
amount of water equal to its own weight. Simple experiment will show
this to be the case. Put an ice-cube in a brim-full glass of water. Or
melt the cube and add that water to the glass. In each case the water
that spills over is the same quantity. But in fact water always spills
over.

Adding water to a brim-full ocean means water will spill over - onto
the land, of course.

And where did the water initially come from, eh?

Do the same experiment, but make an ice cube from the water in the glass
first, and then put the ice cube back into the glass.

You are wrong as far as the oceans are concerned. The polar ice flows
and icebergs are of essentially pure water and are floating in ice cold
*brine* with a typical density of around 1.028 g/cm^3 at 0C.

That's why I asked, where the water *initially* came from.
You're right with pure water, but where does it come from?
Right, precipitation. And where did the precipitation come from?
Right, mostly of evaporation from oceans.

Experiment:

Take an Erlenmeyer flask and fill it with ocean water (assumed your 1.028
g/ccm density).
Now heat that up with a heater while watching density increasing when WV
evaporates.
Collect the condensed steam. This is pure water.
Refill the Erlenmeyer flask with this pure water after you turned the heater
off.
Wow... it has the same density as before.

As long as no WV is lost, you always get the same result, no matter what you
insert the experimental chain of WV cycle (interlinked ice bergs, or
anything).
You only get some minor *variations* in density due toheating and cooling, but
overall there is an equilibrium.
This is called natural change in the big Erlenmeyer flask called Earth.
It is a closed system.


And all ice is essentially fresh water.

All ice has at least 970/912 times the
volume of warm water.

And most of the Ocean is not warm.


The bottom line is the measured rise
in sea level, when it starts to rise measurably
again.