Water experiment

[kp11364]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

[Stu from NYC]

Very interesting. Should be an interesting thread. Thanks for sharing.

[tuccillo]

The only issue is the melting ice is generally not in the ocean. Carry on.

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

[Whitley]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

Be patient with me, my masters is in corporate finance. The first law of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. When I was much younger I would consider that all of the water that has been or will be is already here. Ocean has evaporation, clouds form, when a certain saturation is reached it rains (or snows) and the water falls to the earth. It may land on land as snow or ice or rain. Rain that falls anywhere, or frozen precipitation that falls in water will flow back to the seas. (Kind of makes me wonder about the water we drink, but that too makes its way back I guess). I would propose the sea level can increase based on melting of ice on land. Icebergs or glaciers floating in the sea should have no effect on the sea level when it melts. Only ice now on land, as it melts, would add to the sea level. Overly simplified but I need it to be. Sorry if I am boring or wrong. I understand the above. What I do not understand is how the sea level could increase over 100 years, 1.5 feet off Main, 1 foot in NYC, 1.5 feet in Chesapeake bay and the outer banks of NC, and only 1 foot in Miami. These are all part of the same continent on the Atlantic. Can someone explain it to me, simply? Maybe after that we can discuss how water we drink gets back to the ocean (I fear the answer)

[Pugchief]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

Incorrect:

"Water is actually a very unusual substance because solid water (called ice) is less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.92 g/mL, which means that if you take one gram of water and put in the freezer, when you take it out it will have expanded in volume and take up more space than when it was liquid."
source (https://sciencing.com/calculate-volume-ice-7851671.html)

[retiredguy123]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.
You are correct with respect to floating ice that melts. Actually, ice floats in water with 89 percent of the ice being below the water surface, and 11 percent being above the water level. This is true with floating icebergs in the ocean. But, not all ice in nature is floating. A lot of glaciers are actually located on the ground and are not floating in water. So, when they melt, the water level will rise significantly.

[tuccillo]

The ice that is melting is not in the ocean. As the oceans get warmer, the volume expands.

Be patient with me, my masters is in corporate finance. The first law of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. When I was much younger I would consider that all of the water that has been or will be is already here. Ocean has evaporation, clouds for, when a certain saturation is reached it rains (or snows) and the water falls to the earth. It may land on land as snow or ice or rain. Rain will flow back to the seas. (Kind of makes me wonder about the water we drink, but that too makes its way back I guess). I would propose the sea level can increase based on water in frozen form being on land as ice. Icebergs or glaciers floating in the sea should have no effect on the sea level when it melts. Only ice now on land, as it melts, would add to the sea level. Overly simplified but I need it to be. Sorry if I am boring or wrong. I understand the above. What I do not understand is how the sea level could increase over 100 years 1.5 feet on main, 1 foot in NYC, 1.5 feet in Chesapeake bay and the outer banks of NC, and only 1 foot in Miami. These are all part of the same continent on the Atlantic. Can someone explain it to me, simply? Maybe after that we can discuss how water we drink gets back to the ocean (I fear the answer)

[Whitley]

Incorrect:

"Water is actually a very unusual substance because solid water (called ice) is less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.92 g/mL, which means that if you take one gram of water and put in the freezer, when you take it out it will have expanded in volume and take up more space than when it was liquid."
source (https://sciencing.com/calculate-volume-ice-7851671.html)

I believe I disagree with you. The density is different but weight the same. Fill a cup 3/4 of the way, add enough ice to raise the level to the rim. When the ice melts the water level should be exactly the same (except for very little negligeable evaporation). Archimedes Principle.

[Bill14564]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

A few more experiments:

1. Fill your glass half full and mark the level. Now slowly slide an ice cube into the water. You will see that the water level goes up. This is what happens when a glacier calves or an ice shelf breaks off and falls into the ocean.

2. Fill your glass half full and mark the level. Now hold an ice cube above the glass until it has all melted. You will see that the water level goes up. This is what happens when a glacier on land melts and its water flows to the ocean.

3. Fill a kettle 2/3 full and mark the level. Now put it on a burner and heat it to just below boiling. You will see that the water level goes up. This is what happens when any water gets warmer and expands.

[retiredguy123]

Incorrect:

"Water is actually a very unusual substance because solid water (called ice) is less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.92 g/mL, which means that if you take one gram of water and put in the freezer, when you take it out it will have expanded in volume and take up more space than when it was liquid."
source (https://sciencing.com/calculate-volume-ice-7851671.html)
I believe that the OP is correct with respect to the water level after the ice melts. Before it melts, part of the ice cubes are above the water level. But, when the ice melts, it become more dense and has less volume, but it is no longer floating and the total volume evens out. So, the water level stays the same. If that makes sense.

[Keefelane66]

Be patient with me, my masters is in corporate finance. The first law of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. When I was much younger I would consider that all of the water that has been or will be is already here. Ocean has evaporation, clouds form, when a certain saturation is reached it rains (or snows) and the water falls to the earth. It may land on land as snow or ice or rain. Rain that falls anywhere, or frozen precipitation that falls in water will flow back to the seas. (Kind of makes me wonder about the water we drink, but that too makes its way back I guess). I would propose the sea level can increase based on melting of ice on land. Icebergs or glaciers floating in the sea should have no effect on the sea level when it melts. Only ice now on land, as it melts, would add to the sea level. Overly simplified but I need it to be. Sorry if I am boring or wrong. I understand the above. What I do not understand is how the sea level could increase over 100 years, 1.5 feet off Main, 1 foot in NYC, 1.5 feet in Chesapeake bay and the outer banks of NC, and only 1 foot in Miami. These are all part of the same continent on the Atlantic. Can someone explain it to me, simply? Maybe after that we can discuss how water we drink gets back to the ocean (I fear the answer)
Has to do with tides. The equator has the least rise in tides between high and low.
“ Coastal tidal ranges vary globally and can differ anywhere from near zero to over 11 m (36 ft).”
“ The highest tides in the world can be found in Canada at the Bay of Fundy, which separates New Brunswick from Nova Scotia. The highest tides in the United States can be found near Anchorage, Alaska, with tidal ranges that average around 30 feet ”

[Bill14564]

I believe I disagree with you. The density is different but weight the same. Fill a cup 3/4 of the way, add enough ice to raise the level to the rim. When the ice melts the water level should be exactly the same (except for very little evaporation)

Correct.

A floating body displaces its weight. The ice cube floats because it is less dense than liquid water. Some of the ice cube is above the water because, being less dense, it takes up more space than it would if it was in the liquid state. It displaces a volume of water equal to its weight and the remainder of its volume is above the water line.

When it melts back into the liquid state it becomes just as dense as the water around it. Now it takes up exactly as much space as the part that was not above the water line before.

[golfing eagles]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

Actually, if you could measure accurately enough, you would find the water level actually went down just a bit.

Why???? Because as you cool water in it's liquid form, it contacts a bit and loses some volume all the way down to 32F, when it freezes and expands a bit due to crystallization. We see that everywhere where ice forms---cracking concrete, splitting rocks, etc. This is why ice floats---it is less dense than H2O in liquid form. When you melt it, the opposite occurs and you get a bit of volume contraction.

However, that is not the effect when glaciers and ice caps melt (Antarctic, not Arctic)-----that ice is over land and not part of the ocean---it adds to the ocean and causes the level to rise. And it WILL happen---it has happened over a dozen times in the last 4.5 million years of our current ICE AGE and will happen again. Coastal cities will be underwater, just as cities built on the coast 15,000-20,000 years ago are under water off the coasts of India, Japan and Mexico. And all that happened WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS. It happened because forces much greater than your SUV are driving these cycles. What are these forces----No one knows for sure---the sun, variations in Earth's orbit, changes in the tilt of earth's axis, gravitational forces from undiscovered singularities, spacefaring aliens or God's plan----pick one or more, but your SUV is DEFINITELY NOT ON THAT LIST.

The debate now is whether human activity is changing those cycles, accelerating the global warming that has already been occurring for the last 20,000 years without any human contribution. There is data to show that warming is accelerating, but that data is 10,50, 150 years old at best and is totally inadequate to serve as a predictive model. Add to that there are those that would profit enormously by pushing this climate change agenda and the whole issue becomes less and less scientific.

The other question, even if the alarmists are right, is whether or not we can do anything about it. Frankly, we don't have the technology. The forces listed above are far more powerful than we are. Yes, we can buy EV's that only derive 80% of their energy from fossil fuels instead of 100% like an internal combustion engine, but is that going to change anything???? We might get some change if and when we develop fusion power and can have basically unlimited clean energy and can convert to hydrogen cells for vehicles, but that is at least 20+ years away, if ever. Then there are also wild cards, such as an asteroid/comet hit by one that is say 1/4 mile across--that will be the end of global warming for centuries, get your snowshoes out. Or a super volcano---just hope it isn't the one in Yellowstone.

[retiredguy123]

I believe that the OP is correct with respect to the water level after the ice melts. Before it melts, part of the ice cubes are above the water level. But, when the ice melts, it become more dense and has less volume, but it is no longer floating and the total volume evens out. So, the water level stays the same. If that makes sense.
Correct, but the weight has nothing to do with it. It is about the volume. The volume of the ice is reduced when it melts, but, because the ice was floating, part of it was above the water level. After it melts, the part that was above the water line is now increasing the total volume of water, and the water level is the same.

[tuccillo]

There are three factors at work. Number 1: Ice on land melting because of rising temperatures increases the sea level by adding water to the oceans. Number 2: The warming of the oceans causes an increase in the volume and therefore an increase in the sea levels. Number 3: In many areas, the land is subsiding (sinking) and this makes it appear that the sea level is rising. This phenomenon varies greatly. For example, it is a big factor along the Gulf of Mexico.

Be patient with me, my masters is in corporate finance. The first law of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. When I was much younger I would consider that all of the water that has been or will be is already here. Ocean has evaporation, clouds form, when a certain saturation is reached it rains (or snows) and the water falls to the earth. It may land on land as snow or ice or rain. Rain that falls anywhere, or frozen precipitation that falls in water will flow back to the seas. (Kind of makes me wonder about the water we drink, but that too makes its way back I guess). I would propose the sea level can increase based on melting of ice on land. Icebergs or glaciers floating in the sea should have no effect on the sea level when it melts. Only ice now on land, as it melts, would add to the sea level. Overly simplified but I need it to be. Sorry if I am boring or wrong. I understand the above. What I do not understand is how the sea level could increase over 100 years, 1.5 feet off Main, 1 foot in NYC, 1.5 feet in Chesapeake bay and the outer banks of NC, and only 1 foot in Miami. These are all part of the same continent on the Atlantic. Can someone explain it to me, simply? Maybe after that we can discuss how water we drink gets back to the ocean (I fear the answer)

[Keefelane66]

Ponder this

Will a hot water line freeze before the cold water line?

Hot water can in fact freeze faster than cold water for a wide range of experimental conditions. This phenomenon is extremely counterintuitive, and surprising even to most scientists, but it is in fact real.

[Keefelane66]

Ponder this

How Does Density Affect A Ship's Draft?

In seawater, ships and boats float higher than in freshwater, because the weight of the boat is equal to the weight of water displaced by the boat. The density of seawater is higher and a smaller amount of seawater is to be displayed to keep a ship afloat.

[Bogie Shooter]

My head is beginning to ache.:shrug:

[retiredguy123]

My head is beginning to ache.:shrug:
Put some ice water on it.

[golfing eagles]

There are three factors at work. Number 1: Ice on land melting increases the sea level by adding water to the oceans. Number 2: The warming of the oceans causes an increase in the volume and therefore an increase in the sea levels. Number 3: In many areas, the land is subsiding (sinking) and this makes it appear that the sea level is rising. This phenomenon varies greatly. For example, it is a big factor along the Gulf of Mexico.

You're absolutely right on all of those. Kudos. Of course, I don't think we agree on THE CAUSE of it.

[mntlblok]

Be patient with me, my masters is in corporate finance. The first law of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. When I was much younger I would consider that all of the water that has been or will be is already here. Ocean has evaporation, clouds form, when a certain saturation is reached it rains (or snows) and the water falls to the earth. It may land on land as snow or ice or rain. Rain that falls anywhere, or frozen precipitation that falls in water will flow back to the seas. (Kind of makes me wonder about the water we drink, but that too makes its way back I guess). I would propose the sea level can increase based on melting of ice on land. Icebergs or glaciers floating in the sea should have no effect on the sea level when it melts. Only ice now on land, as it melts, would add to the sea level. Overly simplified but I need it to be. Sorry if I am boring or wrong. I understand the above. What I do not understand is how the sea level could increase over 100 years, 1.5 feet off Main, 1 foot in NYC, 1.5 feet in Chesapeake bay and the outer banks of NC, and only 1 foot in Miami. These are all part of the same continent on the Atlantic. Can someone explain it to me, simply? Maybe after that we can discuss how water we drink gets back to the ocean (I fear the answer)

Simply, it is *exactly* why I occasionally miss a putt. Areas with substandard gravity in place.

[tuccillo]

Of course I'm right. Do you think I make this stuff up? I studied it in undergraduate and graduate school for 10 years and then practiced it for 40 years. What you think is the cause is not relevant. Nobody who makes decisions listens to you, or to me either for that matter.

You're absolutely right on all of those. Kudos. Of course, I don't think we agree on THE CAUSE of it.

[Whitley]

You are correct with respect to floating ice that melts. Actually, ice floats in water with 89 percent of the ice being below the water surface, and 11 percent being above the water level. This is true with floating icebergs in the ocean. But, not all ice in nature is floating. A lot of glaciers are actually located on the ground and are not floating in water. So, when they melt, the water level will rise significantly.

I wonder if the density difference between salt and fresh water creates a statistically significant difference?

[golfing eagles]

Of course I'm right. Do you think I make this stuff up? I studied it in undergraduate and graduate school for 10 years and then practiced it for 40 years. What you think is the cause is not relevant. Nobody who makes decisions listens to you, or to me either for that matter.

No, but I don't make stuff up either. Unfortunately the "people who make decisions" may have an agenda (profit motive) that is not based on the true science. And the facts are so clouded it is hard to make a decision.

[tuccillo]

We are in an interglacial period. The earth is warming naturally plus there is anthropogenic warming also taking place. The sea levels have been rising for some time and will continue to do so, actually accelerating in their rises. The rise is currently about 0.13 inches per year based on satellite measurements.

I wonder if the density difference between salt and fresh water creates a statistically significant difference?

[tuccillo]

This is speculation. I doubt you are versed in the true science. If so, post references to support your claim. Otherwise ....

No, but I don't make stuff up either. Unfortunately the "people who make decisions" may have an agenda (profit motive) that is not based on the true science. And the facts are so clouded it is hard to make a decision.

[golfing eagles]

We are in an interglacial period. The earth is warming naturally plus there is anthropogenic warming also taking place. The sea levels have been rising for some time and will continue to do so, actually accelerating in their rises. The rise is currently about 0.13 inches per year based on satellite measurements.

Absolutely. The question is how much warming is due to human activity. Since you state you are an expert, you already know that sea levels over the past 4 1/2 million years have varied by as much as 400-500 feet. You also know this has been a repetitive cycle lasting 60-100,000 years each time. So, even if we give A LOT of importance to anthropogenic warming, sea levels rise 600 feet and come 25,000 years instead of 30,000???? I do hope, as an expert, you don't believe any of this will affect our grandchildren or even 100 generations going forward.

[tuccillo]

I never stated I was an expert. I do, however, know a fair amount about meteorology and methods of solutions for the N-S equations. The experts in climate dynamics are still working at a number of research organizations around the world. I have been retired for a bit. Most people don't understand the concept of time scales. The concern is what happens over the next 100 years. The longer term time scales, probably driven by the Milanvovitch cycles, are not the concern. The best estimate of the anthropogenic surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. This may very well grow to 2-3C over the next 100 years. That is the concern and it is a legitimate concern for geopolitical reasons. Please stop with the strawman arguments about the next so many tens of thousands of years. That is not the concern or the focus. Also, if your focus is on the political response to the scientific data about climate change then find another audience.

Absolutely. The question is how much warming is due to human activity. Since you state you are an expert, you already know that sea levels over the past 4 1/2 million years have varied by as much as 400-500 feet. You also know this has been a repetitive cycle lasting 60-100,000 years each time. So, even if we give A LOT of importance to anthropogenic warming, sea levels rise 600 feet and come 25,000 years instead of 30,000???? I do hope, as an expert, you don't believe any of this will affect our grandchildren or even 100 generations going forward.

[tophcfa]

Ya ya ya, whatever. Does any of this nonsense effect the price or availability of tee times?

[Keefelane66]

I wonder if the density difference between salt and fresh water creates a statistically significant difference?
Been there done that. My first trip to Antarctica. Reaching what is called Fast Ice the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf Dec 24, 1969. The sea ice does have a slight salt taste most of the salt is dissipated during freezing. Where as Glasier ice is fresh water I have tasted both. Yes there may be yellow snow in Antarctica ice shelf thanks to seals.

[Hape2Bhr]

Has to do with tides. The equator has the least rise in tides between high and low.
“ Coastal tidal ranges vary globally and can differ anywhere from near zero to over 11 m (36 ft).”
“ The highest tides in the world can be found in Canada at the Bay of Fundy, which separates New Brunswick from Nova Scotia. The highest tides in the United States can be found near Anchorage, Alaska, with tidal ranges that average around 30 feet ”

A few years back on an Alaska tour, the guide mentioned the amount of land exposed between high and low tides in Alaska, is about the size of Texas.

[Keefelane66]

My head is beginning to ache.:shrug:
If you can’t swim stay out of the water.

[Stu from NYC]

We will be going above the Arctic Circle in a few weeks and will perform experiments and report back.

[golfing eagles]

I never stated I was an expert. I do, however, know a fair amount about meteorology and methods of solutions for the N-S equations. The experts in climate dynamics are still working at a number of research organizations around the world. I have been retired for a bit. Most people don't understand the concept of time scales. The concern is what happens over the next 100 years. The longer term time scales, probably driven by the Milanvovitch cycles, are not the concern. The best estimate of the anthropogenic surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. This may very well grow to 2-3C over the next 100 years. That is the concern and it is a legitimate concern for geopolitical reasons. Please stop with the strawman arguments about the next so many tens of thousands of years. That is not the concern or the focus. Also, if your focus is on the political response to the scientific data about climate change then find another audience.

Nice. And “another audience “? Didn’t realize you spoke for all of TOTV. Must be nice to be the definitive final word for half a million people

[Whitley]

i m i m

[Whitley]

Simply, it is *exactly* why I occasionally miss a putt. Areas with substandard gravity in place.

You too?

[Whitley]

Ya ya ya, whatever. Does any of this nonsense effect the price or availability of tee times?

This can get me killed in the Villages; I just do not understand the fascination with golf. Sure, you can keep at it throughout your senior years. That is a plus. I played rugby in college. I think I can still play, my wife thinks I took too many hits to the head.

[Two Bills]

If you can’t swim stay out of the water.

Bl**dy water is full of ice cubes.
Definitely not going in.

[Two Bills]

This can get me killed in the Villages; I just do not understand the fascination with golf. Sure, you can keep at it throughout your senior years. That is a plus. I played rugby in college. I think I can still play, my wife thinks I took too many hits to the head.

I also played rugby for a good few years.
I found you sometimes you needed a good hit to the head to clear the previous games concussion.

[tuccillo]

Whatever. Feel free to continue ranting to others. I'm done with your nonsense.

Nice. And “another audience “? Didn’t realize you spoke for all of TOTV. Must be nice to be the definitive final word for half a million people

[golfing eagles]

Whatever. Feel free to continue ranting to others. I'm done with your nonsense.

/// (You can guess at what I was going to say to that):1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Blueblaze]

The OP is obviously correct. The response that had me rolling in the aisles was the guy who said the OP was wrong because frozen water expands. That's true -- and if frozen water didn't sink it would cause the water level to go DOWN when the ice melts!

Here are the facts. The OP's experiment (which is performed millions of times every year in science classes all over the world) proves that the entire Northern ice cap could melt and it would not effect sea levels one iota -- except for Greenland, whose ice is not floating.

Antarctica is a different situation. If it melted, sea levels would rise 200 feet. But since the temperature of the entire continent never gets close to 32 degrees (most of it is around -50 for most of the year), you're going to need a lot more than the 2-5 degree warming that the alarmists are predicting. I don't think even Greta Thunberg is dumb enough to predict an 80 degree rise in temperature at the South Pole 100 years from now!

In fact, even the most pessimistic predictions for the next 100 years only predict about 20" of sea level rise, worst case, and most of that comes from Greenland melting (which happened as recently as 1000 years ago). I could give you a link, but if you actually think Florida is at risk, you need to do the research yourself.

Consider this -- 25% of the entire nation of Holland sits on land that is WAY more than 20" below sea level!

I bet in the next hundred years, if we quit worrying and start thinking of practical (rather than political) solutions, we can probably come up with something to keep Miami from getting its feet wet that doesn't involve condemning the entire 3rd world to perpetual poverty, or mowing down entire states for solar panels and windmills.

Hey, I just had a thought! Two words -- floating docks!

[Keefelane66]

The OP is obviously correct. The response that had me rolling in the aisles was the guy who said the OP was wrong because frozen water expands. That's true -- and if frozen water didn't sink it would cause the water level to go DOWN when the ice melts!

Here are the facts. The OP's experiment (which is performed millions of times every year in science classes all over the world) proves that the entire Northern ice cap could melt and it would not effect sea levels one iota -- except for Greenland, whose ice is not floating.

Antarctica is a different situation. If it melted, sea levels would rise 200 feet. But since the temperature of the entire continent never gets close to 32 degrees (most of it is around -50 for most of the year), you're going to need a lot more than the 2-5 degree warming that the alarmists are predicting. I don't think even Greta Thunberg is dumb enough to predict an 80 degree rise in temperature at the South Pole 100 years from now!

In fact, even the most pessimistic predictions for the next 100 years only predict about 20" of sea level rise, worst case, and most of that comes from Greenland melting (which happened as recently as 1000 years ago). I could give you a link, but if you actually think Florida is at risk, you need to do the research yourself.

Consider this -- 25% of the entire nation of Holland sits on land that is WAY more than 20" below sea level!

I bet in the next hundred years, if we quit worrying and start thinking of practical (rather than political) solutions, we can probably come up with something to keep Miami from getting its feet wet that doesn't involve condemning the entire 3rd world to perpetual poverty, or mowing down entire states for solar panels and windmills.

Hey, I just had a thought! Two words -- floating docks!
Florida’s bedrock is porous limestone estimated to be several hundred to several thousand feet deep a dike wouldn’t work.

[oneclickplus]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

Right. But a LOT of the ice on this planet is not IN THE WATER. Using your drinking glass experiment ... when the ice was ADDED to the water, did it not rise? Of course it did. Now, the same will happen when ice at the polar caps as well as glacial ice (not currently in the water) is ADDED to the water as it melts ... the water level WILL RISE.

[b0bd0herty]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

Truth. Unfortunately, about glaciers cover about 11% percent of Earth's land area so when (IF) they melt, that will be water added.

[midiwiz]

The only issue is the melting ice is generally not in the ocean. Carry on.

doesn't matter where it's located......

[crash]

You are correct with respect to floating ice that melts. Actually, ice floats in water with 89 percent of the ice being below the water surface, and 11 percent being above the water level. This is true with floating icebergs in the ocean. But, not all ice in nature is floating. A lot of glaciers are actually located on the ground and are not floating in water. So, when they melt, the water level will rise significantly.

I agree 100% but too simple for climate change deniers to grasp.

[crash]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

Try this experiment fill your glass with water and place a screen over the top and put your ice cubes on the screen. Once they have melted see how the water level has changed. You may be surprised it has risen.

Glaciers are on land and are receding my example. Icebergs are in the water your example. The icebergs break off from the glaciers increasing the volume the more icebergs the greater the volume.

[golfing eagles]

Try this experiment fill your glass with water and place a screen over the top and put your ice cubes on the screen. Once they have melted see how the water level has changed. You may be surprised it has risen.

Glaciers are on land and are receding my example. Icebergs are in the water your example. The icebergs break off from the glaciers increasing the volume the more icebergs the greater the volume.

///

[golfing eagles]

Try this experiment fill your glass with water and place a screen over the top and put your ice cubes on the screen. Once they have melted see how the water level has changed. You may be surprised it has risen.

Glaciers are on land and are receding my example. Icebergs are in the water your example. The icebergs break off from the glaciers increasing the volume the more icebergs the greater the volume.

I agree 100% but too simple for climate change deniers to grasp.

All that is true----but it's just the how, not the why

The why is that glaciers melt, (slowly), because the Earth is warming. DOH.

But the Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years. Before that it cooled for 45, 000 years, and before that, etc. etc.

And all that happened without any help whatsoever from our Neanderthal and Cro Magnon ancestors. So who are the real "climate change deniers"?

[dewilson58]

Fact:

Two shots of gin in a glass.

Four ice cubes.

Mark the combined level on the side of the glass.

Watch, over the next half hour...............the combined level goes down.

In Fact: the glass is completely empty.

:D

[M2inOR]

Plate tectonics will have more of an effect on coastal areas than glacial melt.

At one time almost all of Florida was under water. Millions of years of coral and other sealife died and deposited matter that created the limestone. Other geologic events caused that Florida land mass to apparently rise above the sea level. It could have been due to the weight of the receding glaciers. It could have been movement of the magma well below the Earth's crust.

There are mountains in Italy that are made of white marble high above sea level by hundreds and thousands of feet. Marble is produced when limestone is subjected to pressure and heat. Plate tectonics had something to do with creating those marble mountains; that's where Cararra is mined.

We humans cannot conceive of the time-frames it takes for all these changes to the Earth.

Man caused? Pollution, yes. Sea level rise and fall? Less so.

But yes, the climate is changing, but many, many factors contribute to this.

We'll do much better when we all have a better understanding of geology rather than politics.

[dewilson58]

I just do not understand the fascination with golf.

You get to play with grass.

You get to play in sand.

You get to play in water.

You get to play with your putter.

What's not to love.

[rvalukonis]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

Sorry, there will be a slight but measurable reduction in the water level since ice is less dense than water and contracts 9% by volume when it melts. That's why ice floats in water.

[Sandy and Ed]

Fact:

Two shots of gin in a glass.

Four ice cubes.

Mark the combined level on the side of the glass.

Watch, over the next half hour...............the combined level goes down.

In Fact: the glass is completely empty.

:D
Great. In fact this entire stream is great. Me? I think I learned a lot of facts…..or opinions. Thank you to all who shared their thoughts

[golfing eagles]

Sorry, there will be a slight but measurable reduction in the water level since ice is less dense than water and contracts 9% by volume when it melts. That's why ice floats in water.

Agree, which is what I had posted. However, to be technically correct we have to account for the volume of ice above the water line. Therefore, we need to modify the experiment to put the ice at the bottom of the glass, cover it with a screen and then add water. Then we would find a slight drop in the level. But again, this has nothing to do with ice over land melting.

[Wondering]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.
Tell that to all the coastal areas throughout the world and small islands that are disappearing. Clueless!

[retiredguy123]

Sorry, there will be a slight but measurable reduction in the water level since ice is less dense than water and contracts 9% by volume when it melts. That's why ice floats in water.
This has been explained in other posts. The ice floats, but part of it is above the water line, so when it melts, the water level is essentially the same as it was before it melts.

[PersonOfInterest]

Here's a new science experiment. A Gallon of Water weighs 8.34 lbs. Drink a gallon of water and then weigh yourself to see if you weigh 8+ lbs. more. Next consider the displacement of water when an object is placed in / on the water. The water increase could be caused by all the ships we've placed in the oceans some of which are as large as icebergs. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about your absolutely right. I just make stuff up as I go along.

[bogmonster]

Try this little experiment.

One the first hole today, fill a big swig with ice and then top off with favorite beverage. Make sure you finish before third hole. I guarantee you will have to stop at next porta potti to remove the excess water.

[jparsoneau@aol.com]

Could we all agree to disagree with all the disagreements on here?

[golfing eagles]

Could we all agree to disagree with all the disagreements on here?

Why????? This is, after all, TOTV :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Stu from NYC]

Could we all agree to disagree with all the disagreements on here?

I am nut sure but think I will disagree with that.

[golfing eagles]

I am nut sure but think I will disagree with that.

I agree with you:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[kylecurtis]

Finally someone got it right. The amount of water on the planet has never changed. Sea levels have been much higher and lower. Many scientists believe hat some changes are due to the suns 22 year cycles not human involvement.

[MidWestIA]

So if there is a HUGE amount of water on the mountains and land what happens to the ocean when it melts

[golfing eagles]

So if there is a HUGE amount of water on the mountains and land what happens to the ocean when it melts

It runs off into the oceans and ocean levels rise. Over the next 25,000 years. Then we cool again, it snows, forms glaciers and more ice at the poles, and NYC will once again, for the 12th time or more, be under 2 miles of ice in 70,000 years. Anyone who thinks this will happen in our lifetimes, such as one prominent individual who wrote a book and had a movie made , is an idiot. Or has a lot of $$$$ to make by pushing this lie.

[BrianL99]

Here's a new science experiment. A Gallon of Water weighs 8.34 lbs. Drink a gallon of water and then weigh yourself to see if you weigh 8+ lbs. more. Next consider the displacement of water when an object is placed in / on the water. The water increase could be caused by all the ships we've placed in the oceans some of which are as large as icebergs. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about your absolutely right. I just make stuff up as I go along.

You might as well. Everyone else is, but just doesn't admit it.

A bunch of guys who flunked 6th Grade Science, debating Global Warming?

Ice Cubes melt and take up the same volume? Scientists are confused about why "hot water freezes faster"? (Look up Mpemba effect.) The oceans aren't rising, the continents are sinking?

Global Warming/Climate Change is a political phenomena and anyone with a whit of common sense knows that.

Trying to apply a modicum of common sense to the arguments, is similar to trying to cure the shanks or the yips, by putting coins in your left pocket.

[Bigmo93]

Incorrect:

"Water is actually a very unusual substance because solid water (called ice) is less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.92 g/mL, which means that if you take one gram of water and put in the freezer, when you take it out it will have expanded in volume and take up more space than when it was liquid."
source (https://sciencing.com/calculate-volume-ice-7851671.html)

Exactly, that’s why ice floats. If H2O was like most molecules, it would become more dense and be bad news for fish, because it would sink. I’m not sure where this thread is going, but recall the “experts” all told us we would freeze to death due to the coming ice age when we were kids. Do you think Obama would have bought a beachfront mansion if this global warming was real. It’s all fear mongering for power.

[Whitley]

Could we all agree to disagree with all the disagreements on here?

OK with me. What are we disagreeing on?

[forebubba]

The only issue is the melting ice is generally not in the ocean. Carry on.

Some who gets it. Now fill that glass with water and put the ice cubes in. Have paper towels ready. The ice that is melting is from the land.
Note all the glaciers that have receded...what is left behind?..dry land.

[Whitley]

You might as well. Everyone else is, but just doesn't admit it.

A bunch of guys who flunked 6th Grade Science, debating Global Warming?

Ice Cubes melt and take up the same volume? Scientists are confused about why "hot water freezes faster"? (Look up Mpemba effect.) The oceans aren't rising, the continents are sinking?

Global Warming/Climate Change is a political phenomena and anyone with a whit of common sense knows that.

Trying to apply a modicum of common sense to the arguments, is similar to trying to cure the shanks or the yips, by putting coins in your left pocket.

Didn't a politician once say he wanted to remove our military base(s) on Guam because he feared by adding more tanks, jeeps etc the island may tip over or sink?

[Whitley]

Nice. And “another audience “? Didn’t realize you spoke for all of TOTV. Must be nice to be the definitive final word for half a million people

You would think, but there are nights that the responsibility is so great that I can not sleep.

[Whitley]

Anyone who wants to sell in anticipation of the rising seas, I will give you .30 on the dollar for your home.

[BrianL99]

Didn't a politician once say he wanted to remove our military base(s) on Guam because he feared by adding more tanks, jeeps etc the island may tip over or sink?

Rep. Hank Johnson is a Democrat from Georgia. I think that explains everything.

Hank Johnson Worries Guam Could "Capsize" After Marine Buildup - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/)

[Stu from NYC]

I agree with you:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Why?

[golfing eagles]

Why?

I disagree with your implied disagreement of my agreement :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Fenster]

1. Take a bottle of beer, for example. Put it in the freezer. It will “explode” before long. Frozen water takes up more space than liquid water.

2. Much of the ice caps is on land, not in the water.

[ccrider]

Very interesting to finally get a thread based on real-life technical data, although there were probably few who understood. Pure science, folks.

[Stu from NYC]

I disagree with your implied disagreement of my agreement :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Was not implied but not sure what we are talking about now so that is probably a good thing.

[golfing eagles]

Was not implied but not sure what we are talking about now so that is probably a good thing.

I disagree, unless you also disagree, in which case I agree and/or disagree with your disagreement:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: I think that makes sense:spoken:

[wayned]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

1. Add a piece of cheesecloth secured with a rubber band
2. Add two or three ice cubes on top of the cheesecloth
3. Repeat #3
The cheesecloth represents the ice in Greenland; as I understand things the ice in Greenland is a mile thick!

[jimjamuser]

Ponder this

Will a hot water line freeze before the cold water line?

Hot water can in fact freeze faster than cold water for a wide range of experimental conditions. This phenomenon is extremely counterintuitive, and surprising even to most scientists, but it is in fact real.
In an average home in the winter, the COLD water line will likely have flow more often than the HOT water line. Therefore, the HOT water line COULD freeze 1st.

[jimjamuser]

Actually, if you could measure accurately enough, you would find the water level actually went down just a bit.

Why???? Because as you cool water in it's liquid form, it contacts a bit and loses some volume all the way down to 32F, when it freezes and expands a bit due to crystallization. We see that everywhere where ice forms---cracking concrete, splitting rocks, etc. This is why ice floats---it is less dense than H2O in liquid form. When you melt it, the opposite occurs and you get a bit of volume contraction.

However, that is not the effect when glaciers and ice caps melt (Antarctic, not Arctic)-----that ice is over land and not part of the ocean---it adds to the ocean and causes the level to rise. And it WILL happen---it has happened over a dozen times in the last 4.5 million years of our current ICE AGE and will happen again. Coastal cities will be underwater, just as cities built on the coast 15,000-20,000 years ago are under water off the coasts of India, Japan and Mexico. And all that happened WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS. It happened because forces much greater than your SUV are driving these cycles. What are these forces----No one knows for sure---the sun, variations in Earth's orbit, changes in the tilt of earth's axis, gravitational forces from undiscovered singularities, spacefaring aliens or God's plan----pick one or more, but your SUV is DEFINITELY NOT ON THAT LIST.

The debate now is whether human activity is changing those cycles, accelerating the global warming that has already been occurring for the last 20,000 years without any human contribution. There is data to show that warming is accelerating, but that data is 10,50, 150 years old at best and is totally inadequate to serve as a predictive model. Add to that there are those that would profit enormously by pushing this climate change agenda and the whole issue becomes less and less scientific.

The other question, even if the alarmists are right, is whether or not we can do anything about it. Frankly, we don't have the technology. The forces listed above are far more powerful than we are. Yes, we can buy EV's that only derive 80% of their energy from fossil fuels instead of 100% like an internal combustion engine, but is that going to change anything???? We might get some change if and when we develop fusion power and can have basically unlimited clean energy and can convert to hydrogen cells for vehicles, but that is at least 20+ years away, if ever. Then there are also wild cards, such as an asteroid/comet hit by one that is say 1/4 mile across--that will be the end of global warming for centuries, get your snowshoes out. Or a super volcano---just hope it isn't the one in Yellowstone.
To be absolutely fair, SOME people and 97% of scientists believe that during the recent (last 30 years) we have seen much evidence of man-made Global Warming CAUSED by our old friend - the infernal combustion engine - the kind found in Golf Cars, automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles and the LOUD non-catalytic converter equipped lawnmowers and lawn blowers - very LOUD that we hear every day. I BET that if they were using battery-powered lawnmowers and lawn blowers, The Villages would sound more quiet and peaceful. Yes, that would be PROGRESSIVE and fewer workers would suffer hearing damage.
The world's oceans ARE rising as proven by scientist's measurements. And the thing is, despite the occasional climate denier, we ALL know that the cause is the infernal combustion engine's excessive use in the richer 1st world countries like the US, Europe, and etc. We as a human species have been SLOW to accept these facts and last year hurricane IAN took a bite out of Florida. And humans have had many, many other warnings related to climate.

[jimjamuser]

No, but I don't make stuff up either. Unfortunately the "people who make decisions" may have an agenda (profit motive) that is not based on the true science. And the facts are so clouded it is hard to make a decision.
Scientists knew about global warming by 1980, but the oil and gas industry cared more about their precious "PROFITS" than they cared about US citizens and the human race. So, today we are in a "HOT" mess. And today we can ALL feel that HEAT - as the world sets HEAT RECORDS now, every day!

[golfing eagles]

To be absolutely fair, SOME people and 97% of scientists believe that during the recent (last 30 years) we have seen much evidence of man-made Global Warming CAUSED by our old friend - the infernal combustion engine - the kind found in Golf Cars, automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles and the LOUD non-catalytic converter equipped lawnmowers and lawn blowers - very LOUD that we hear every day. I BET that if they were using battery-powered lawnmowers and lawn blowers, The Villages would sound more quiet and peaceful. Yes, that would be PROGRESSIVE and fewer workers would suffer hearing damage.
The world's oceans ARE rising as proven by scientist's measurements. And the thing is, despite the occasional climate denier, we ALL know that the cause is the infernal combustion engine's excessive use in the richer 1st world countries like the US, Europe, and etc. We as a human species have been SLOW to accept these facts and last year hurricane IAN took a bite out of Florida. And humans have had many, many other warnings related to climate.

Here's your problem ---NOBODY knows that. And NOBODY who thinks fossil fuels are the problem can explain why the oceans have risen just as much over and over and over again in the last 4 1/2 million years WITHOUT fossil fuels

[jimjamuser]

Ya ya ya, whatever. Does any of this nonsense effect the price or availability of tee times?
Actually, it DOES affect tee times in Florida. The Gulf is 95 degrees, so more moisture is contained in the warmer AIR (than the historic average). So, Florida has more rainouts of tee times. And the afternoon HEAT makes a smaller % of golfers able to TOLERATE that HEAT and HUMIDITY. The heat is at a DANGEROUS level for people and especially the older people. Many medical experts have stated this on TV in the last 2 weeks. Several have stated that continued exposure to HIGH HEAT can lower human lifespan.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Has to do with tides. The equator has the least rise in tides between high and low.
“ Coastal tidal ranges vary globally and can differ anywhere from near zero to over 11 m (36 ft).”
“ The highest tides in the world can be found in Canada at the Bay of Fundy, which separates New Brunswick from Nova Scotia. The highest tides in the United States can be found near Anchorage, Alaska, with tidal ranges that average around 30 feet ”

Because of the coriolis effect, tides go clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. Because of the shape of the Bay of Fundy, the tidal wave is entering a funnel where it narrows at the end and therefore the tidal wave is trapped, causing a very large wave volume into a smaller container. . tidal waves are very long and low in the open ocean, like the ones caused by undersea earthquakes, but the volume is massive when trapped by land. similar effects in Alaska in the Northern Hemisphere

And your point make no sense to the topic.

former licensed master mariner

[Halbraun]

Has to do with tides. The equator has the least rise in tides between high and low.
“ Coastal tidal ranges vary globally and can differ anywhere from near zero to over 11 m (36 ft).”
“ The highest tides in the world can be found in Canada at the Bay of Fundy, which separates New Brunswick from Nova Scotia. The highest tides in the United States can be found near Anchorage, Alaska, with tidal ranges that average around 30 feet ”

Tides are not lower at the equator per se.. do at search.

[Pugchief]

LOL, I already surmised your perspective.

I will be curious to see if anybody with an opposing point of view can answer those questions in a non-disingenuous way.

[Pugchief]

And BTW, I drive a Tesla and limit consumption of red meat. But neither has anything to do with climate change. 🙃

[golfing eagles]

LOL, I already surmised your perspective.

I will be curious to see if anybody with an opposing point of view can answer those questions in a non-disingenuous way.

Good luck with that

[Carlsondm]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.
Not true. The density of both water and ice varies with temperature. Ice expands enough that a full plastic bottle of water will burst in your freezer. There are charts of the density of both water and ice at different temperatures and pressures used by design teams. You need to correct the densities for impurities, of course.
The statement seems true because only a (small) glass of water/ice is used and the elder human eye can't discern the change in meniscus. There is a change in volume.

[Bill14564]

Not true. The density of both water and ice varies with temperature. Ice expands enough that a full plastic bottle of water will burst in your freezer. There are charts of the density of both water and ice at different temperatures and pressures used by design teams. You need to correct the densities for impurities, of course.
The statement seems true because only a (small) glass of water/ice is used and the elder human eye can't discern the change in meniscus. There is a change in volume.

This is incorrect. See replies #6, #10, or #12 for an explanation.

(though it is true that the small glass and the meniscus of water would make measurement difficult)

[Pugchief]

Your words seem to belie your true feelings as demonstrated by your arguments. No believer in denier's clothing, more like a true denier posing as a skeptic.

I am not interested in playing whack-a-mole with you.

When the debate is lost or one doesn't have a reasonable answer to the argument posed, the only option is to resort to ad hominem to deflect.

As you wish.

[dougawhite]

Pump ocean water into the Sahara Desert and ocean levels will noticably decrease. It's a solution that only requires the will to do it; all the technology already exists and it's simple to implement.

[Worldseries27]

ya ya ya, whatever. Does any of this nonsense effect the price or availability of tee times?
my bartenders are in charge of my ice situations

[rogerrice60]

love your demonstration!

It's great when someone injects common sense into the global warming debate.

I remember in the 1960's all the talk shows were in an uproar over GLOBAL COOLING; they claimed the "ice cap" was growing so big, it would tip the earth upside-down!

The "loonies" will always be with us I assume..

[Pugchief]

Pump ocean water into the Sahara Desert and ocean levels will noticably decrease. It's a solution that only requires the will to do it; all the technology already exists and it's simple to implement.

This is an example of a "fix". Thank you for a productive contribution.

I have not read up on this concept, but if feasible, this fix could potentially solve one issue. Similar fixes could solve others. Humankind's ability to solve problems through technology is amazing.

[Stu from NYC]

Pump ocean water into the Sahara Desert and ocean levels will noticably decrease. It's a solution that only requires the will to do it; all the technology already exists and it's simple to implement.

Would this work or perhaps have unintended and unexpected consequences?

[Worldseries27]

All ice fans will enjoy this book

[Bill14564]

Pump ocean water into the Sahara Desert and ocean levels will noticably decrease. It's a solution that only requires the will to do it; all the technology already exists and it's simple to implement.

Would this work or perhaps have unintended and unexpected consequences?


If the oceans are expected to rise by one inch in the next 50 years (I believe it might be sooner than that) then it would require pumping 92,000,000 gals/min for each and every minute of that 50 years to counter that one inch rise.

This would fill the Sahara to a depth of 39" with not one drop making its way back into the Mediterranean Sea or the Nile River.

[Whitley]

Please excuse what I am sure is going to be an oversimplified thought. On the barrier islands I inhabit, the Gulf has crept closer to my home, condo business. This would be three islands. For the past twenty five years at least, we remedy this by "beach renourishment". On the island where my office is, 8.7 million cubic yards of sand was added to the beach that runs about 15 miles long. The sand is brought to the beach from a barge and pipe system sitting a mile off shore, and dump trucks bringing sand from inland locations. Could this not be an option for places like Miami Beach? We have also built concrete groins to catch sand on the outgoing tides.

[jimjamuser]

Please excuse what I am sure is going to be an oversimplified thought. On the barrier islands I inhabit, the Gulf has crept closer to my home, condo business. This would be three islands. For the past twenty five years at least, we remedy this by "beach renourishment". On the island where my office is, 8.7 million cubic yards of sand was added to the beach that runs about 15 miles long. The sand is brought to the beach from a barge and pipe system sitting a mile off shore, and dump trucks bringing sand from inland locations. Could this not be an option for places like Miami Beach? We have also built concrete groins to catch sand on the outgoing tides.
It sounds good to "re-nourish" a stretch of sandy beach and it may work in the SHORT term. But, let's look at the LONG term disadvantages in the equation. It is difficult to beat MOTHER NATURE. Sand is heavy. Large dump trucks and earth movers have large diesel engines which are spitting out exhaust full of CO and CO2. Which adds to the stratospheric layer that is reflecting HEAT back to our earth's surface.
To be "poetic" about it, that HEAT angers OUR mother. Right now, today she has produced heat advisories from Ca. to Florida (we can feel that HEAT). She has taken out her displeasure in the form of heat strokes for humans in the southern USA. Montpelier, Vermont is practically underwater from record rains and floods. Just the cost to rebuild the roads to Montpelier will be a HUGE setback and expense for the state.
People had warnings about this present climate catastrophe as far back as 1950 (scientists knew the danger). We are all now paying for the inaction and the DENIERS (that still exist among us). Beautiful beaches and coral reefs did NOT have to be "re-nourished" in the 1950s. The 1950s did NOT have the RECORD man-made HEAT from climate change that we do today. The population of the US was probably about 150 million back then. So, there was NOT the big demand for fossil fuel energy used in industry and automobiles.
Science warned us, but the fossil fuel industry fought the knowledge and science (and they won). Basically, stupidity and deceit won the day. And today we are left with a wounded planet. We beat up our own mother!

[retiredguy123]

Please excuse what I am sure is going to be an oversimplified thought. On the barrier islands I inhabit, the Gulf has crept closer to my home, condo business. This would be three islands. For the past twenty five years at least, we remedy this by "beach renourishment". On the island where my office is, 8.7 million cubic yards of sand was added to the beach that runs about 15 miles long. The sand is brought to the beach from a barge and pipe system sitting a mile off shore, and dump trucks bringing sand from inland locations. Could this not be an option for places like Miami Beach? We have also built concrete groins to catch sand on the outgoing tides.
Miami Beach has been renourished in the past, mostly because of storm erosion, not because of rising water levels. Usually, the main reason for beach renourishment is for recreation purposes. I remember when the Army Corps of Engineers refused to renourish the beach at Hilton Head, South Carolina until they provided more free publc access to the beach.

[djlnc]

If the oceans are expected to rise by one inch in the next 50 years (I believe it might be sooner than that) then it would require pumping 92,000,000 gals/min for each and every minute of that 50 years to counter that one inch rise.

I was curious about your numbers so I did the calculation - you'll be happy to know I came out with the same thing. :>)

[Bill14564]

I was curious about your numbers so I did the calculation - you'll be happy to know I came out with the same thing. :>)

I was surprised myself. Thank you for confirming.

[Laker14]

No, but I don't make stuff up either. Unfortunately the "people who make decisions" may have an agenda (profit motive) that is not based on the true science. And the facts are so clouded it is hard to make a decision.

Like the fossil fuel industry just may (just maybe, I know they are above reproach when examining the history of how nicely they've always handled environmental consequences ) have a profit motive associated with their constant and continued denial of the effects of their industry on climate change.

[sounding]

I never stated I was an expert. I do, however, know a fair amount about meteorology and methods of solutions for the N-S equations. The experts in climate dynamics are still working at a number of research organizations around the world. I have been retired for a bit. Most people don't understand the concept of time scales. The concern is what happens over the next 100 years. The longer term time scales, probably driven by the Milanvovitch cycles, are not the concern. The best estimate of the anthropogenic surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. This may very well grow to 2-3C over the next 100 years. That is the concern and it is a legitimate concern for geopolitical reasons. Please stop with the strawman arguments about the next so many tens of thousands of years. That is not the concern or the focus. Also, if your focus is on the political response to the scientific data about climate change then find another audience.

The comment ... "the anthropogenic surface temperature anomaly is about 1C" ... is not proven and just wishful thinking. People keep forgetting we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age - and it's expected to continue for some time to come - regardless of what humans do.

[oldtimes]

doesn't matter where it's located......

It absolutely does. If all of the ice is on a land mass and melts into a body of water the water is definitely going to rise.

[dhdallas]

In regard to a recently closed thread about rising water levels, try this:

1. Fill a drinking glass half-full with water
2. Add 2-3 ice cubes. Look at the water level.
3. Put the glass aside; let all the ice melt. You will see that the water level remains the same. Why? Because the amount of water remains the same, regardless of the state of the water.

First off, melting glaciers are on land & above sea level so all that water runoff is raising sea levels. Even inland mountain snowpack & glaciers are melting and that runoff eventually ends up in the oceans. Then there is the added effect of thermal expansion as the oceans become warmer, the water expands.

Your example of ice cubes in water is however comparable to melting sea ice. As ice on land melts, water flows into the ocean, and sea level rises. But sea ice, the stuff that forms a frozen cap floating on top of the water, has only a very minor impact on sea level. Ice is less dense than liquid water & that's why ice floats and a portion of the ice floats above water. When ice melts, the same mass fits into a smaller volume.

I will never understand laypersons who dispute proven scientific findings. Try telling the polar bears who are drowning as the Arctic Circle melts and shrinks that global warming is a farce. By promoting non-scientific theories, conspiracy theories, and just plain lies regarding global warming it is following generations who will have to deal with the problems caused by global warming and the short sighted and selfish views of the climate change deniers.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/members/dhdallas-118996/albums/golfing-in-tv/10313-climate-change.jpg

[sounding]

First off, melting glaciers are on land & above sea level so all that water runoff is raising sea levels. Even inland mountain snowpack & glaciers are melting and that runoff eventually ends up in the oceans. Then there is the added effect of thermal expansion as the oceans become warmer, the water expands.

Your example of ice cubes in water is however comparable to melting sea ice. As ice on land melts, water flows into the ocean, and sea level rises. But sea ice, the stuff that forms a frozen cap floating on top of the water, has only a very minor impact on sea level. Ice is less dense than liquid water & that's why ice floats and a portion of the ice floats above water. When ice melts, the same mass fits into a smaller volume.

I will never understand laypersons who dispute proven scientific findings. Try telling the polar bears who are drowning as the Arctic Circle melts and shrinks that global warming is a farce. By promoting non-scientific theories, conspiracy theories, and just plain lies regarding global warming it is following generations who will have to deal with the problems caused by global warming and the short sighted and selfish views of the climate change deniers.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/members/dhdallas-118996/albums/golfing-in-tv/10313-climate-change.jpg

Polar Bears have been increasing for many years thanks to global warming and more CO2. In fact, there are now too many, which is why they allow "harvesting" from 700 to 800 a year. It only costs $50,000 each - with gun or bow. There is no climate change crisis - just a climate education crisis. Nunavut Territory Polar Bear Hunting - Worldwide Trophy Adventures (https://worldwidetrophyadventures.com/trips/nunavut-territory-polar-bear-hunting/)

[Two Bills]

Polar Bears have been increasing for many years thanks to global warming and more CO2. In fact, there are now too many, which is why they allow "harvesting" from 700 to 800 a year. It only costs $50,000 each - with gun or bow. There is no climate change crisis - just a climate education crisis. Nunavut Territory Polar Bear Hunting - Worldwide Trophy Adventures (https://worldwidetrophyadventures.com/trips/nunavut-territory-polar-bear-hunting/)

Nothing to do with CO2 or global warming etc.
There has always been Polar Bear hunting in Canada, and there is no number restriction on the indigenous population.

[sounding]

Nothing to do with CO2 or global warming etc.
There has always been Polar Bear hunting in Canada, and there is no number restriction on the indigenous population.

It's amazing how climate alarmists push junk science to scare people, and when the data proves otherwise, they make up more junk science and actually deny their original claim. However, with relentless support from CNN and other similar junk science outlets, the scam goes on ... even for the so-called desperate polar bears (and the same goes for corals) ... Study finds direct link between greenhouse gas emissions and polar bear survival | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/world/polar-bear-greenhouse-gas-emissions-intl-scli-climate-scn/index.html)

[Two Bills]

It's amazing how climate alarmists push junk science to scare people, and when the data proves otherwise, they make up more junk science and actually deny their original claim. However, with relentless support from CNN and other similar junk science outlets, the scam goes on ... even for the so-called desperate polar bears (and the same goes for corals) ... Study finds direct link between greenhouse gas emissions and polar bear survival | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/world/polar-bear-greenhouse-gas-emissions-intl-scli-climate-scn/index.html)

Not pushing any junk science at all. Just some facts.
Canada is only country that allows Polar Bear hunting and it has always done so.
Russia in '50's, and Norway and USA banned it in 70's when PB numbers declined due to poaching and over hunting.
The numbers have since risen to somewhere between 20-30,000 worldwide.
Comeback has nothing to do with rising CO2, Global warming etc. at all.
You are the one making the spurious claims regarding PB's

[sounding]

Not pushing any junk science at all. Just some facts.
Canada is only country that allows Polar Bear hunting and it has always done so.
Russia in '50's, and Norway and USA banned it in 70's when PB numbers declined due to poaching and over hunting.
The numbers have since risen to somewhere between 20-30,000 worldwide.
Comeback has nothing to do with rising CO2, Global warming etc. at all.
You are the one making the spurious claims regarding PB's

1. There are countless claims by the media and climate alarmists that polar bears are dying because of too much CO2. There are even scamsters claiming to save them if you donate money - like the WWF.

2. True. locals are allowed to hunt bears, but people don't know that anyone can now hunt them - just for $50,000 a hunt - because the herd continues to increase thanks to global warming and more CO2.

[jebartle]

To be absolutely fair, SOME people and 97% of scientists believe that during the recent (last 30 years) we have seen much evidence of man-made Global Warming CAUSED by our old friend - the infernal combustion engine - the kind found in Golf Cars, automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles and the LOUD non-catalytic converter equipped lawnmowers and lawn blowers - very LOUD that we hear every day. I BET that if they were using battery-powered lawnmowers and lawn blowers, The Villages would sound more quiet and peaceful. Yes, that would be PROGRESSIVE and fewer workers would suffer hearing damage.
The world's oceans ARE rising as proven by scientist's measurements. And the thing is, despite the occasional climate denier, we ALL know that the cause is the infernal combustion engine's excessive use in the richer 1st world countries like the US, Europe, and etc. We as a human species have been SLOW to accept these facts and last year hurricane IAN took a bite out of Florida. And humans have had many, many other warnings related to climate.

And please lets not forget the farm animals pooooop!
Actually this has been a very interesting read, all experts I'm sure, we must have all stayed at a Holiday Inn!

[sounding]

To be absolutely fair, SOME people and 97% of scientists believe that during the recent (last 30 years) we have seen much evidence of man-made Global Warming CAUSED by our old friend - the infernal combustion engine - the kind found in Golf Cars, automobiles, snowmobiles, motorcycles and the LOUD non-catalytic converter equipped lawnmowers and lawn blowers - very LOUD that we hear every day. I BET that if they were using battery-powered lawnmowers and lawn blowers, The Villages would sound more quiet and peaceful. Yes, that would be PROGRESSIVE and fewer workers would suffer hearing damage.
The world's oceans ARE rising as proven by scientist's measurements. And the thing is, despite the occasional climate denier, we ALL know that the cause is the infernal combustion engine's excessive use in the richer 1st world countries like the US, Europe, and etc. We as a human species have been SLOW to accept these facts and last year hurricane IAN took a bite out of Florida. And humans have had many, many other warnings related to climate.

"To be absolutely fair" about your facts .... how much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year? This is so well known, it should be very easy to find.

[Two Bills]

No, YOU (and others) are the ones complaining that increasing CO2 is killing them off...

We are simply asking why their numbers have increased 4 fold if they are being killed off...

Think you should bother to read my previous posts regarding PB's.
At no time have I complained/stated that CO2, or global warming is killing the bears.
I disagreed with the other posters repeated claims that CO2 and global warming are responsible for bears numbers rising.
The ban on hunting in the 50's and 70's by all bar Canada are the main reason for the returning to previous population figures.
Canada allows hunting in one area, and the numbers killed is controlled by the local indigenous population.

[JMintzer]

Think you should bother to read my previous posts regarding PB's.
At no time have I complained/stated that CO2, or global warming is killing the bears.
I disagreed with the other posters repeated claims that CO2 and global warming are responsible for bears numbers rising.
The ban on hunting in the 50's and 70's by all bar Canada are the main reason for the returning to previous population figures.
Canada allows hunting in one area, and the numbers killed is controlled by the local indigenous population.

According to the articles posted in this thread, the increase in PBs are due to their increased food source. Not a ban on hunting...

[Bill14564]

According to the articles posted in this thread, the increase in PBs are due to their increased food source. Not a ban on hunting...

And other articles attribute it to more accurate counting (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/27/fact-check-false-claim-global-population-polar-bears-increasing/11092356002/), conservation efforts (https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/), or really no increase at all (https://polarbearscience.com/2021/10/27/fact-checkers-fail-to-refute-polar-bear-number-increases-despite-extensive-expert-rhetoric/).

It would seem the number of polar bears is a bad proxy for the impact of climate change.

[Topspinmo]

Of course I'm right. Do you think I make this stuff up? I studied it in undergraduate and graduate school for 10 years and then practiced it for 40 years. What you think is the cause is not relevant. Nobody who makes decisions listens to you, or to me either for that matter.


The ones making the decision are just guessing.

[Topspinmo]

IMO need to be more concerned about de-forestation and population grown. That IMO what killing the planet earth. IMO that only thing we can control. IMO If we control that other factors reduce.

[mtdjed]

Correct, but the weight has nothing to do with it. It is about the volume. The volume of the ice is reduced when it melts, but, because the ice was floating, part of it was above the water level. After it melts, the part that was above the water line is now increasing the total volume of water, and the water level is the same.

Didn't we learn all this in grade school?

Why Ice Floats for Kids - Bing video (https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=Why+Ice+Floats+for+Kids&&mid=B10D3C0F9D3C03B9DC00B10D3C0F9D3C03B9DC00&&FORM=VRDGAR)

[sounding]

Think you should bother to read my previous posts regarding PB's.
At no time have I complained/stated that CO2, or global warming is killing the bears.
I disagreed with the other posters repeated claims that CO2 and global warming are responsible for bears numbers rising.
The ban on hunting in the 50's and 70's by all bar Canada are the main reason for the returning to previous population figures.
Canada allows hunting in one area, and the numbers killed is controlled by the local indigenous population.

The junk-science message is clear - according to alarmists (and Al Gore) - man-made (CO2 driven) warming hurts polar bears ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MddWTJEFrTc

[Two Bills]

According to the articles posted in this thread, the increase in PBs are due to their increased food source. Not a ban on hunting...

My bad.
Of course with all this CO2 saving the planet, the world is greening up, and the Polar Bears have all become vegetarians and breeding like rabbits.
China, USA, and India as the producers of over 50% of the CO2 between them, should be commended for saving the planet.
A Nobel gong for saving the world no less! :coolsmiley:

I may be a bit old and thick, but I know the life cycle of seals and Polar Bears, and the late forming of Polar Ice, thinner ice, and the melt coming earlier, is not conducive for their sustained welfare.
They will adapt over time, but to say CO2/Climate Change is their friend is utter nonsense

[sounding]

My bad.
Of course with all this CO2 saving the planet, the world is greening up, and the Polar Bears have all become vegetarians and breeding like rabbits.
China, USA, and India as the producers of over 50% of the CO2 between them, should be commended for saving the planet.
A Nobel gong for saving the world no less! :coolsmiley:

I may be a bit old and thick, but I know the life cycle of seals and Polar Bears, and the late forming of Polar Ice, thinner ice, and the melt coming earlier, is not conducive for their sustained welfare.
They will adapt over time, but to say CO2/Climate Change is their friend is utter nonsense

Some call it nonsense - I call it common sense. A totally iced north pole means almost no access to seals - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. A totally (or mostly) ice-free north pole means access to seals and other forms of life (like walruses) - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. It seems that human alarmists are unable to survive climate change.

[Two Bills]

Some call it nonsense - I call it common sense. A totally iced north pole means almost no access to seals - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. A totally (or mostly) ice-free north pole means access to seals and other forms of life (like walruses) - which happened in the past - and the PBs survived. It seems that human alarmists are unable to survive climate change.

///

[JMintzer]

And other articles attribute it to more accurate counting (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/27/fact-check-false-claim-global-population-polar-bears-increasing/11092356002/), conservation efforts (https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/), or really no increase at all (https://polarbearscience.com/2021/10/27/fact-checkers-fail-to-refute-polar-bear-number-increases-despite-extensive-expert-rhetoric/).

It would seem the number of polar bears is a bad proxy for the impact of climate change.

Then the climate alarmists should stop using it!

[Bill14564]

Then the climate alarmists should stop using it!

I’ve lost track. Are the climate alarmists using it or is it the other side fixated on proving Al Gore was wrong?