Warming Wackos

[seethelight]

Found this brilliant bit of scientific analysis in my morning paper. This is a letter to the editor.


WARMING WACKOS

Arctic melting wouldn’t raise ocean levels

In looking at the Dec. 26 Asay’s View about melting the polar ice caps, the woman in the cartoon is so representative of the sheep people who believe this global warming farce and never doubt the reality or validity of the subject. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the Arctic nothing but a huge ice cube floating on an ocean? The weight of the ice has already displaced all the water it can and if it melted it wouldn’t raise the world’s oceans 1 inch. If you put an ice cube in a glass, then fill the glass with water to the brim, when the ice cube melts the water will not overflow the glass edge.

If the Antarctica ice sheet melts it is a different story as it rests on land, but it still wouldn’t flood 92 percent of Florida; the land the ice is on would rise as the weight of the mile-thick ice was removed.

Now I would consider this an attempt by my local paper to point out how stupid some people can be, but in light of it's normally conservative content I am thinking that in their minds this was a "good point".

:confused: :rolleyes: :huh: (not sure which one applies)

[Plognark]

The stupid, it burns :banghead:

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

umm...
Is'nt the floating ice part right, i.e. floating ice melting does not cause a rise in water level ( Archimedes' law )?

[RawData]

Okay, run all the ice off of antarctica, and assume the land rises. Land rising there would not make the world water level go down. It would displace MORE water and cause the oceans to rise further elsewhere.
The 'land rising' is not going to happen fast (if at all) anyway.
Extra 'Duh!' points for that one.

RawData

[epepke]

umm...
Is'nt the floating ice part right, i.e. floating ice melting does not cause a rise in water level ( Archimedes' law )?

It is right.

Of course, if the arctic ice melts, then there's a pretty good chance that the antarctic ice is going to melt, too, and that's on rock. The second part of the letter is just plain stupid. Antarctica isn't made of sponge rubber. And even if it were, the problem would be worse.

[premjan]

Isn't most of the arctic ice resting on top of (Green) land?

[BioBeing]

The world's glaciers react to and interact with changes in global and regional climates. Most mountain glaciers worldwide have been retreating since the latter part of the 19th century; global sea level has risen about 10 centimeters during the past century. Glaciers vary in size as a result of several factors, of which climate variation is probably the most important. The reasons we are interested in glacier variation include its connection to climate change and to global sea level.

The present volume of the Earth's glacier ice, if totally melted, represents about 80 meters in sea-level rise. From minimum (an interglacial epoch) to maximum (an ice-age epoch) volume of glacier ice on the continents, sea level has a range of 200 meters. For example, during the last glacial peak, about 20,000 years ago, sea level is estimated to have been 120 meters lower than it is today. During a warmer climatic interval in the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, sea level was about 6 meters higher than it is today; during an even warmer interval 3 million years ago, sea level is estimated to have been 25 to 50 meters higher. Sea-level changes, especially in low-lying coastal areas and on islands, have significant effects on human activities and facilities.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs133-99//worldmap.gif
White areas show ice sheets and other glaciers around the world. The white spots in the oceans are islands where glaciers are found.

All the above from here (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs133-99//index.html)

[Anglican]

Yep it's ccorrect in so far as the ice in the artic sea thta melts will not raise sea levels, but it neglects the effects of the ice on greenland melting and running into the sea which would cause sea levels to rise.

[cmotdibbl3r]

I've talked to several folks at my wife's fundy-church and have always noticed that most of them seem almost rabid in their denial of global warming. I don't think it is really related to politics since they poohed-poohed the idea before Bush was in office. Some have gone on to describe the global warming "theory" as a pseudo science (just like evolution). I'm usually left speechless.

[Ulrich]

Perhaps you should pen a letter to the editor explaining to the good people in your community that the letter you posted here is just about as wrong as it could be.

[Boro Nut]

Yep it's ccorrect in so far as the ice in the artic sea thta melts will not raise sea levels, but it neglects the effects of the ice on greenland melting and running into the sea which would cause sea levels to rise.

Perhaps genetic engineering and selective breeding will allow us to accelerate human evolution, hopefully to the point where we as a species could one day gain the ability to move away from the water's edge faster than it rises. Otherwise we are all doomed, as they seem to want us to believe.

We can't even resort to moving house, because that would involve a change of circumstances, and we all know that culturally that has only ever worked for millenia. Nor could we decide to stay put and just live on house boats, as that's been tried countless times before around the world with resounding success. I trully shudder to think how I will cope in 300 years time. We need gills, and we need them fast.

PS - no-one seems to point out that the rising sea levels will put out all the coal burning power stations, so it's a self limiting process anyway.

Boro Nut

[theyeti]

Thermal expansion will also cause sea level rise.

theyeti

[jim frampton]

Yep it's ccorrect in so far as the ice in the artic sea thta melts will not raise sea levels, but it neglects the effects of the ice on greenland melting and running into the sea which would cause sea levels to rise.

Consider also that with warmer world temperatures the global mass of liquid
water will increase in volume and that fact must be factured in. :

[RawData]

PS - no-one seems to point out that the rising sea levels will put out all the coal burning power stations, so it's a self limiting process anyway.
Good point!
Also, most refineries are located at sea level and on the coastline.
RawData

[Yggdrasill]

It's true that Antarctica would rise if the ice is removed, Scandinavia is still rising from the last ice age, in some places the ground has risen dozens of meters. But as RawData pointed out, the land rising would be slow, and it wouldn't be a good thing.

[B_Sharp]

But as RawData pointed out, the land rising would be slow, and it wouldn't be a good thing.The absolute WORST CASE of the global warming wackos is a sea rise of 80 meters. That is a football field. Who cares?? That is nothing. 3 million years ago already added 50 meters WITHOUT mankind.

Buy land in Antartica! Now. I'll give you a discount. Buy Here Now.

GOOD NEWS
The 'worst case' senario is good news. It will kick out all those leftist liberals who mass along the coastline. You know those Blue states.

New York City under a football field of water is welcome news. I will rent land in Greenland to those leftist wackos. :)

[g-21-lto]

In looking at the Dec. 26 Asay’s View about melting the polar ice caps, the woman in the cartoon is so representative of the sheep people who believe this global warming farce and never doubt the reality or validity of the subject. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the Arctic nothing but a huge ice cube floating on an ocean? The weight of the ice has already displaced all the water it can and if it melted it wouldn’t raise the world’s oceans 1 inch. If you put an ice cube in a glass, then fill the glass with water to the brim, when the ice cube melts the water will not overflow the glass edge.
But we have evidence in the geological record of the sea levels being *much* higher than today, which are believed to be associated with warming events. Either way, the sea level can, and eventually will, rise drastically again at some point.
If the Antarctica ice sheet melts it is a different story as it rests on land, but it still wouldn’t flood 92 percent of Florida; the land the ice is on would rise as the weight of the mile-thick ice was removed.
Post-glacial rebound occurs, to my knowledge, much more slowly than this. And if the land is rising, wouldn't it be displacing *more* water, therefore raising sea levels instead of lowering them?