i stand corrected. apparently, a rise in level of 6 meters or more is seriously considered, should greenland dump its load. that would make this image the relevant one.

now that... would suck.

quote Originally posted by ray b: .... Greenland ice cap would rase water levels about 20 feet if it all melts .02 of an inch is not a real number for greenland found in any real study just made up BS .....

ok, this will be fun. so:
area of greenland = 836,109 sq mi
area of oceans = 139,397,000 sq mi
so, anyone want to work out how high the ice is on greenland based on raising 139,397,000 sq miles 20 feet from 836,109 sq miles of ice?
hint: 1 mile = 5380 feet or 20 feet = 0.0037 miles

anyone wanna go skiing?

quote Originally posted by ray b: esp the blonds

ray, ray, ray. doing so well in some respects, and then this unfortunate tendency to resort to ugly stereotypes. first, the suggestion that todd's arse was sore because he hung out in san francisco. and now this.

i'm blonde, ray.

stick to the frackin' topic.

quote Originally posted by ray b: your hooters girls may be cute but are not a good teck data source esp the blonds

but...I bet they can spell Blonde.....

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 03-02-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: ok, this will be fun. so: area of greenland = 836,109 sq mi area of oceans = 139,397,000 sq mi so, anyone want to work out how high the ice is on greenland based on raising 139,397,000 sq miles 20 feet from 836,109 sq miles of ice? hint: 1 mile = 5380 feet or 20 feet = 0.0037 miles anyone wanna go skiing?

i think it needs to be worked out in volume, not area. the volume of the greenland ice cap is 630,000 cubic miles.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i think it needs to be worked out in volume, not area. the volume of the greenland ice cap is 630,000 cubic miles.

yes, the area is the sq.ft. - the 3rd dimension is the 20 feet - and as it turns out - yes - it all works out
little over 1/2 mile thick by that. and, matches with every other number thrown out. 7 meters is roughly 20 feet.....
so - RayB got it right

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: while googling the question, i found this set of images, illustrating the actual submergence of coastal areas based on different levels of sea-level rise.

Crap. What that shows is that with any kind of sea level rise, I'll need to relocate the PFF server.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Crap. What that shows is that with any kind of sea level rise, I'll need to relocate the PFF server.

oh heck, yeah. in any significant scenario, the netherlands are toast.

or soggy cereal, rather.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Crap. What that shows is that with any kind of sea level rise, I'll need to relocate the PFF server.

yes - this is the problem with global warming - not the actual temps - but all the melted ice.
being in Detroit - I really dont need to worry until Niagra falls turns into a white water rafting trip - and thats 70 feet. good luck melting that much ice.

just out of spite, how well will middle east counties do with a 20 foot sea level rise?

Im using a PHDs on climatology stats. I think he knows more than you. So your suggesting that an island (granted a large one) has enough ice to raise the level of the ocean 20 feet on the whole planet where 80% (guess on my part) is covered by water ?????? LOL. Send some of that medication up here, Id like some. Take a football field and pour out a 10 gallon bucket of water on the center of it and see how deep it is. Be lucky if the edges even get dampened.

If you take that number as actual cubic area of the ice in Greenland, figure out the cubic area of the planet, figure the percentage of that that is water and Ill bet youll see that its a drop in the bucket. Dont forget to allow that a cubic mile of ice does not equal a cubic mile if its water. There must also be a formula somewhere that tells you what percentage of area liquid takes of that area as snow or ice. Seems I heard something like 6 inches of snow/ice equals 1 inch of liquid water....I thought I heard the weatherman say if we had a foot of snow, it would be like a 2" rain but I could be wrong.

*** " just made up BS " ==== you mean like Gore and his supporters do........

No the girls at the restaurant arent all that bright to furnish me stats. I even have to set all their car clocks when we go to daylite saving time.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-02-2007).]

quote Originally posted by dsnover: more interesting: http://news.nationalgeograp...28-mars-warming.html Sure _seems_ to indicate that the current global warming trend may be related to solar, not (necessarily) man... Thoughts?

At the risk of upsetting those who subscribe to the AGW religion, here's more info...

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Science Daily — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

================

Well, that coincides with the period of alleged AGW.

Here is another source. It isn't a formal scientific site, but has several links to science sites.

How is it that there is evidence of warming on several planets, but the sun *can't* be the cause of Earth's warming? That's more than coincidence.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Im using a PHDs on climatology stats. I think he knows more than you. So your suggesting that an island (granted a large one) has enough ice to raise the level of the ocean 20 feet on the whole planet where 80% (guess on my part) is covered by water ?????? LOL. Send some of that medication up here, Id like some. Take a football field and pour out a 10 gallon bucket of water on the center of it and see how deep it is. Be lucky if the edges even get dampened. If you take that number as actual cubic area of the ice in Greenland, figure out the cubic area of the planet, figure the percentage of that that is water and Ill bet youll see that its a drop in the bucket. Dont forget to allow that a cubic mile of ice does not equal a cubic mile if its water. There must also be a formula somewhere that tells you what percentage of area liquid takes of that area as snow or ice.

i think the misapprehension you're laboring under, roger, is the notion that 20 feet is a lot. considering how deep the oceans actually are, such a change in surface level could be considered... a drop in the bucket.

edit: i should point out that many other "PhDs in climataology" hold a very different view. the real point is learning to evaluate them, not just pass them back and forth like gaming cards.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 03-02-2007).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Im using a PHDs on climatology stats. I think he knows more than you. So your suggesting that an island (granted a large one) has enough ice to raise the level of the ocean 20 feet on the whole planet where 80% (guess on my part) is covered by water ?????? LOL. Send some of that medication up here, Id like some. Take a football field and pour out a 10 gallon bucket of water on the center of it and see how deep it is. Be lucky if the edges even get dampened. If you take that number as actual cubic area of the ice in Greenland, figure out the cubic area of the planet, figure the percentage of that that is water and Ill bet youll see that its a drop in the bucket. Dont forget to allow that a cubic mile of ice does not equal a cubic mile if its water. There must also be a formula somewhere that tells you what percentage of area liquid takes of that area as snow or ice. Seems I heard something like 6 inches of snow/ice equals 1 inch of liquid water....I thought I heard the weatherman say if we had a foot of snow, it would be like a 2" rain but I could be wrong. *** " just made up BS " ==== you mean like Gore and his supporters do........ No the girls at the restaurant arent all that bright to furnish me stats. I even have to set all their car clocks when we go to daylite saving time.

thats exactly what I posted above. and, yes - it works out to roughly 20 feet. theres ALOT of Sq.Miles & it is thick.

what I posted:
area of greenland = 836,109 sq mi
area of oceans = 139,397,000 sq mi
so, anyone want to work out how high the ice is on greenland based on raising 139,397,000 sq miles 20 feet from 836,109 sq miles of ice?
hint: 1 mile = 5380 feet or 20 feet = 0.0037 miles

works out to just over 1/2 mile - which also roughly matches the estimated ice.
this also does not count siberia, yukon or anything on the artic cap which is above sea level - or the antartic cap.
it also does not count the ocean area growing due to land going underwater
nor does it count density difference between ice & water

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: you need to define the surface area. if its only 6 Square Inches - a bucket will raise it ALOT - if its 8 thousand sqaure feet - a bucket wont raise it much.

the question is one of proportion. if the tank is a tube, yes the level will go up more in absolute terms... but the ratio ought to be the same.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: the question is one of proportion. if the tank is a tube, yes the level will go up more in absolute terms... but the ratio ought to be the same.

well, assuming a 5 gallon bucket into a 1000 gallon tank.....yes - the ratio of change is constant.
but, our concern is how much rise we will actually get. and for this, the surface area is the key
heck, in zero gravity - we could also work out the dia increase of the water sphere

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, assuming a 5 gallon bucket into a 1000 gallon tank.....yes - the ratio of change is constant. but, our concern is how much rise we will actually get. and for this, the surface area is the key heck, in zero gravity - we could also work out the dia increase of the water sphere

my argument is that roger's disbelief on the 20-foot rise is based on the mistaken perception that it's a disproportional amount. 20 feet may seem like a lot, especially with respect to an area as great as the ocean's... but is it really? is it within an order of magnitude as the same proportion that a gallon of water would cause a thousand to rise, regardless of the shape of the container?

i only proposed the thought experiment because i'm too busy to do the algebra right now. if no one else has by then, i'll do the pen and paper work this weekend. i'll dispense with the fudge factors when i do.

of course, averaging the depth of the sea is like considering a spherical cow.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 03-02-2007).]

again - thats why I amde the post above - I too was in disbelief that you could get 20 feet out of Greenland.
and, I already did the math above
maybe I should spell it out completely:

area of greenland = 836,109 sq mi
area of oceans = 139,397,000 sq mi
1 mile = 5380 feet or 20 feet = 0.0037 miles

volume need to fill 139,397,000 Square Miles 0.0037 miles = 515,769 Cubic Miles
515,769 Cubic Miles / 836,109 Square Miles = 0.6 miles thickness required

how thick is the ice?
and, you also had a post suggesting greenland was 630,000 Cubic Miles - so the math is very close to that

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: and, you also had a post suggesting greenland was 630,000 Cubic Miles - so the math is very close to that

so we're arguing in agreement?

I think i want to side with Roger on this water raisin issue.

If all the water in the word melted and I mean every drop I don't believe it would raise the sea level 20'.

First off most of this earth is covered with water (2/3's) Also the square area now covered will increase as the ice melts cause we all know most coast line don't go straight up.

Then as all the ice under sea level melts it will increase the ocean's volume cause frozen water displaces more area than liquid water.

So only the ice above sea level can raise ocean levels and the amount it displaces as ice will not be as much after its melted.

20' no freakin way!! Sounds more like a round figure Al pulled out of his A!

quote Originally posted by Butter: Then as all the ice under sea level melts it will increase the ocean's volume cause frozen water displaces more area than liquid water.

you're not following. the water displacement of sea-borne ice isn't relevant at this point. what's in question is the possible result of the complete thawing of the ice that covers greenland.

quote Originally posted by Butter: I think i want to side with Roger on this water raisin issue. If all the water in the word melted and I mean every drop I don't believe it would raise the sea level 20'. First off most of this earth is covered with water (2/3's) Also the square area now covered will increase as the ice melts cause we all know most coast line don't go straight up. Then as all the ice under sea level melts it will increase the ocean's volume cause frozen water displaces more area than liquid water. So only the ice above sea level can raise ocean levels and the amount it displaces as ice will not be as much after its melted. 20' no freakin way!! Sounds more like a round figure Al pulled out of his A!

go ahead - its VERY simple 8th grade geometry tho - as posted above.
Al Gore had NOTHING to do with the surface area of the ocean, or the surface area of greenland. they are fixed & known
and, being greenland is an island - I can pretty much assume its ice is above sea level. also, I did mention my math did NOT include the area growth as water levels rise - and it also did not count the Yukon/Glacier park ice, Siberia Ice or Antartic ice - all of which are also above sea level.
if you like, I could also incorporate the area growth based on a averaged constant 1:10 shore slope. or, if you have an actual topographic surface model - just use that.

Greenland is estimated 630,000 Cubic Miles of ice. now, spread that over the 139,397,000 Square Miles of Ocean, and see what ya get.
Greenland is not like 6" of ice that can be chopped thru with a pick. It gets over a mile thick. over 5,380 feet of ice.

and again - greenland is not the only 'hunk-o-ice' - there are others.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: you're not following. the water displacement of sea-borne ice isn't relevant at this point. what's in question is the possible result of the complete thawing of the ice that covers greenland.

He does make a good point, though, that the world's coastlines aren't all vertical. That means that the water level would rise, but you have to factor in the tapered contour of most coastline.

Assuming my statement that water yeilds only 1/6 the area of the ice, you need to cut the ice area by 1/6. Even if I gave you the 20', that means the water from that ice would only raise it 3.3 feet. Anyway, like I said, it wasnt my figures it was an expert in the field. You can chose to believe Goreites, or like me believe more along the thought of Dr Ball.

How long would it take to melt that ice, Ball says it took 5,000 years for the last ice age to thaw over N America. So Id say it isnt going to happen in your lifetime ...or even in your great great great great great great great.................................grandchildrens lifetime.

ok - 524,580 miles of shoreline (against 139,397,000 Square miles of surface)
1:10 slope (pretty gentle)
20 foot up (or 0.0037 miles up)

1:10 slope = 0.00007 Square Miles per Mile Coast = 37 Cubic Miles taken by coastline - out of the estimated 630,000 Cubic Miles of Greenland.

Yep, if thats what I understood the weather man to say. ( 1 foot of snow is compable to 2" rainfall). Someone can do a test if this is an unknown. lets make it inches instead of feet...would that work the same? get a 20"x20"x20" block of ice and see if its 3 1/2 inches of water when it melts.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-02-2007).]

snow is not ice.

the increase in volume of ice over liquid water is only about 9%.

The key here is what is the density.

In fact the density of ice is 7.65 pounds/gallon compared to 8.35 pounds/gallon for water. Therefore, one gallon of ice weighs 7.65 pounds, but 7.65 pounds of water is only 7.65/8.35 = 0.92 gallons of water.

Continue on with the discussion.

John Stricker

PS: Don't forget to factor in that sea water has a different density than fresh water and the ice is made almost completely of fresh water.

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but I thought water weighed 13/lbs/gallon?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'm probably misunderstanding this, but I thought water weighed 13/lbs/gallon?

i have never memorized the weight of water, but a quick google says that stricker's right. 8.35 pounds per gallon.

i like this little page on the density of ice. it's where i got the 9% value.

Your memory is in error

I actually do use this all the time. When we spray, or mix fertilizers, water is the carrier. It's much easier to have the mixing tanks on a scale and put in 7,500# of water than buy equipment that measures volume and put in 900 gallons. The density of water doesn't change until it changes states, that is turns into steam or freezes (for all practical purposes, nitpicking aside).

You also can't compare the weight of SNOW to ice. Snow is mostly air. Ice is nearly solid.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'm probably misunderstanding this, but I thought water weighed 13/lbs/gallon?

It's now 2007. Those SAME scientists were telling me when I was in high school that we'd be getting 20 FEET of snow every winter, and not having enough warm days to bother going to the beach in the summer. In fact, we've had "global warming" continuously for the last 4000 years at which time most of North America was covered by ice. Present day Canada was covered by ice more than 1000 meters / 3,200 feet thick! I'm not doubting warming is happening, but the EXTENT to which man is responsible (greatly exaggerated I think) and the thought we can stop it (wishful thinking) is what I doubt. I am especially pi$$ed at the guys running around waving their hands in the air crying "the end is near".

The panic is because scientists can now actually measure the rate at which it is happening, and people have chosen to live on low coastal areas. Of course they'd be flooded if the waters rise, just like the guy who build his house on a river flood plain. Most cities have finally got the good sense to ban new suburban developments on flood plains, and people who get flooded out sometimes get the hint that they shouldn't rebuild on the same spot. The water rise will be slow, not a tidal wave and people will just have to retreat as the waters rise. This is called adaptation.

OK. ice is only slightly larger mass in area than that of water. I didnt know is why I asked. Now Ive also found out that packed snow, or fallen snow are also different densities. What are the ratios of those to water ? Maybe snow is what the weatherman is talking about. With that, I know that all the ground cover on Greenland is not solid ice. A LOT of it has to be just packed snow and fallen snow...how do you take that into account ? Even saying all that, I still cant believe that even if the whole area of Greenland sank, ice and landmass, the water worldwide would raise 20'. If that was the case, when new islands form, wouldnt that lower the water levels ?

snow density according to this graph from the near artic looks to be pretty steady for last 20+ years
http://www.taiga.net/coop/indics/snowden.html

and its a whole lot more complicated than I thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow

".........New snow often has a density of around 12% of water...."

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-03-2007).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: . If that was the case, when new islands form, wouldnt that lower the water levels ?

Nope, It would displace water and cause a rise in level. By the way, I do not believe the figures either, nor that it is any kind of real threat in the foreseeable future.

Had an interesting conversation at work about this..

Anyone notice that a lot of the GW followers are a lot like hard core religious fanatics?

Look at hard core reborn Christians or Muslims.. willing to lash out at anything that questions their faith.

We ask simple questions, hell not even denying that global warming is happening.. but to what extent man has had an effect and you'd think we were drawing cartoons of Mohammad, or calling the Pope a rapist.