Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Rising sea levels

Just curious of the physics behind this.
Floating ice, it seems to me, would displace water in proportion to it's own (total) volume. So how do we get an increased sea level?
The ice is less dense than liquid water, so part of the ice sticks above the water, but isn't the water volume of the ice the same as the water it displaces?

Melting ice in salt water decreases density, which increases volume.

Ice on Greenland and Antarctica needs to melt to get substantial sea level rise.

Pretty much, its not the melting of sea ice that cause levels to rise, it is the melting of land ice that drains into the oceans that leads to sea level rising. It's like adding ice cubes to a glass of water. Both Greenland and Antarctica contain vast amounts land locked water.

Again, the OP asked about FLOATING ice. I'm not debating how much it would take to show any type of significant change.

Just that floating ice is fresh water, fresh water is less dense than salt water. When ice melts, you add more fresh water to the salt water, which decreases the density and increases the volume.

All I know is that raising sea level about 30 feet will solve most of the country's problems.

But when fresh water in an iceberg is floating on sea water, it displaces just as much sea water as it will displace once it melts.

It's true that ice is fresh water and when it melts it reduces the density of the ocean. However, considering the total volume of sea ice compared to the total volume of the oceans, if it all the sea ice melted, would it make any practical difference in the final volume and sea level?

How many places that are reported as the ocean is rising when it actually the land is subsiding?

Jim

Thank you.

In the beginning, God set the limits of the waters so they would not transgress their boundaries. Don't reckon that'll change until He decides different.

Have God explain that to New Orleans, willya? And then to the Thai folks after the tsunami. And the Japanese after theirs. And...

That's one of the reasons why sea level is notoriously hard to measure.

^^^ Rocky, the answer is simple .. phrased in Reloader28's vernacular, it appears that He has decided different. Apparently he didn't seek Reloader28's approval first.

It makes me laugh when people invoke God's omnipotence when it furthers their position in a debate, then turn around and act as if he needs their permission if that'd further their position. Hypocrites.

Tom

it's not God's fault that the idiots keep building New Orleans below sea level. Not God's fault that folks tend to build at the water's edge either.

it's always been a puzzle to me that there's not more holes in the ocean bed that allow more of the water to seep down and turn to steam down closer to the Earth's core. but I guess the ground is mostly impervious.

I wish hunting seasons would hurry up and get here.

New Orleans is built below sea level. If you're stupid enough to do that, expect a good flood every so often.
Tsunamis are the result of undersea earthquakes. We're prone to quakes everywhere on earth. If you fear quakes on land, don't live near faults. If you fear quakes under water, don't live near the coast. They're not related to rising seas. If you drive down the Oregon coast, there are hundreds of houses and whole towns built on cliffs above the water. Even a gentle quake will put them all below sea level.

My question is related to Reloder's claim that waters cannot rise unless God wills it. Therefore, if the waters rise it must be God's fault. And if that is true, then kindly tell NASA that burning fossil fuels has nothing to do with it.

The issue is not the floating ice as it is already part of the total volume. The increase in sea levels will come from the glaciers that are on the land and when then calve or melt become part of the total volume of whatever sea they dump/drain into. 8th grade physical/Earth Science class, i remember it well.


Too many climate deniers fail to see there is a difference between ice that has already calved the ice that is still terrestrial.

Quiz on friday!

What does any of that have to do with the question?

God Said it-Believe it!!!

You cannot invoke an all knowing, all powerful creator, and then claim that anything that happens is not his fault.

Of course it's God's fault. He could make the Universe and it's inhabitants any why he choose, and he choose to make folks who like to live below sea level and at the waters edge.

If God didn't choose to make these people this stupid, we wouldn't have this problem.

When the ice in my gin and tonic melts, it displaces down my gullet.

Another factor never mentioned about sea rise and all the nonsense about about how the melting of glaciers and the ice on land, such as Greenland and Antarctica, is Continental Rebound. Alarmists state that this will flood coastal cities as the ice melts.

Think about it. Continental plates are simply huge rafts that float on a sea of magma. Put a lot of weight (mass) on that and it will push against the magma and the other plates will equalize the pressure (both continental and sea plates). When the continents lose the ice, the land will actually rise because the land is displacing less magma. Similarly, the sea plates will get lower as more weight is distributed over the sea plates. In other words, the continental plates and sea plates work to equilibrium.

Never read anything about that, though I wouldn't be surprised if there was some minor effect. But historically all evidence points to the sea dropping dramatically during ice ages, and rising dramatically in between. Dramatically as measured over thousands of years, that is. It's been higher than it is now, and it's been lower.

The seas have been rising for the last 20,000 years and will continue rising until we peak and start sliding down into the next ice age. So personally... I'm all for watching the seas continue to rise at the rate they have been. Because if you want to see drought conditions, wait until the warm period is over and we start sliding down the climate trough again.

Not a Climate denier. That's what climate does is change.
I do have some questions about the change being anthropomorphic or not.
There are natural forces at work that make our activities, and our contribution seem rather meager.
I don't think we are smart enough to understand what may happen, or what is causing it.
A lot of people would prefer to believe that it is man caused, because it makes them think we have some control over the issue, and can, therefore prevent the problems.
If it's volcanoes, earthquakes and, to some extent, wildfires, then we are powerless.
Nature can pump a lot more carbon into the atmosphere than we ever could.

and we don't know if evapo-transpiration rates will rise or change if ocean levels rise. it is implied that there will be a greater surface area of water. that mean more water vapor in the atmosphere, I believe.

Except for the part above the surface of the sea.

Fill your sink most of the way up, slowly put a bowl or pot in it, put some water in it to balance it so it doesn't tip over. See what happens to the level of your sink water when you then push the rest of the pot into the water in the sink. I bet it raises (maybe overflows if you filled it high enough to start).

Comment about fresh/salt water dilution is also right on, fresh is less dense. Also warming water is less dense and therefor takes up more space (volume).

Someone else mentioned it, the real concern is land ice as in glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and to a lesser extent our own mountains (yep, that water melted from the receding glaciers it going into the rising ocean).

Geno

Hell, in five years we will all be worried about falling sea levels as global cooling starts expanding the ice sheets.
Either way, I'm in a pretty safe spot.

The libs are on a guilt trip. They want to blame global climate change on the evil humans in an attempt to tax us more. Back in the 70's, they said that we were going into an ice age. In the 80's, Ted Danson claimed that the climate was warming and NY City would be under water by the year 2000. I guess they were wrong. About 5 or 6 years ago they figured out that the climate wasn't getting warmer, so they changed their terminology and are now calling it climate change, as if the climate isn't allowed to change. That's like saying our weather should be the same each day.

Liberals are short minded. They constantly quote data only going back 100 years or so. It is a fact that the earths climate has changed naturally since the beginning of time for millions and millions of years. Ask any geologist.

I think most people agree that we shouldn't pollute the environment. But the notion that people are the cause is asinine.

I wouldn't worry about the oceans rising anytime soon. God will probably wait at least a couple of thousands of years before he gets rid of NY City.

From earlier today...

NASA: Sea Level Rise Could Be Worse than we Thought

Climate change is about the rich
getting richer.

When the ice on Greenland melted they found farms that had been buried under ice.

Actually I'm wrong and Steelhead is right (no shocker there). I knew I was missing something.

A freshwater iceberg will displace the equivalent mass of seawater when floating - but when the iceberg melts the volume of the water in the iceberg is added to the volume of the seawater - so it ends up in a net sea level rise.

Mass versus mass for displacement with solid masses and water, but volume plus volume for water added to water. Since seawater is denser than fresh water, the iceberg displaces less seawater than equivalent volumes of freshwater and seawater would make up.

Never doubt a coastie when he talks water.

Yes, they use computer climate models. The computer models use data that some wacko environmentalist put in.

Garbage in....garbage out.

I agree with StoneCutter on this.

and satellite data...

Wind, stacking water up in places, sucking it out of others. While some places HAVE seen some rise, there are places where the level has fallen. Wind currents push it around. Looks better to the greenies to have ice melting. Furthers their agenda. Like we will go and check it out....buncha bull puckey, if you ask me.

Columbia University releases these numbers which the panic group references:

Raw satellite data from 1992 to 2015:



But!! Isn't it curious that the start of the extremely rapid increase correlates exactly with the start of satellite data?

So we have this paper published which puts in adjustments to the data correcting for satellite and land movement and that last 25 years goes from 3.2mm/yr to 2.6mm/yr:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2635.html



Still an increase, but it's still odd that the uptick happened the same exact time as the satellite data. So.. expect to see more corrections come out.

Here's an easy way to visualize it. You have a 10 gal block of ice floating in the sea. 9 gal of it are below the surface and 1 gal is above. When the block melts, it becomes more dense and the 10 gal of ice is now the size of 9 gal of sea water - which exactly fills the hole in the water made by the block of ice.

I don't know if the Cray super-computers are still with us or not. but, thanks to the high Priests at NASA providing us with a global view of our Earth, we can see we're trapped in a terrarium of sorts.

I don't know if we're changing the climate or not. but, some say the weight (density) of the mega-cities are having an influence on the tectonic plates and their pressure on the magma. I don't know.

it's not inconceivable that all the automobile exhausts, and industrial outputs globally are having an impact. just how much of an impact I have no clue. but I'm not blind either.

How much of that exhaust is blocking the sun's energy from reaching the earth and actually reducing the amount of warming that we'd have without it?

That was my mistake. The 10 gal block of ice (which is 9 gal of water when thawed) won't displace 9 gallons of sea water. It would displace as much sea water as weighs the same as 9 gal of fresh water.

Sea water is about 2% denser than fresh water. So your 10 gallon ice would displace 8.82 gallons of seawater. When it thaws, it would mix with the 9 gallons of seawater to make 18 gallons.

there's some counter-balancing impacts going on, but I don't even know if the atmospheric chemists can successfully model it all or not. it's doubtful that they can, but they can provide important insights.

(did you catch the sales pitch for more research is needed)?

I can't believe all the emissions doesn't have some degree of impact. and then add the random, chaotic, and unscheduled releases of gases from volcanoes and the plot thickens. It thickens even more with the annual behavior of the sun.

personally I believe we have created a witches brew of sorts with all the chemical that post-modern humans are releasing into the atmosphere. but it all might counter-balance each other. I do not know.

The big issue is how much money someone can make by convincing people that it's harmful.

Eureka!

Water is most dense at 4*C (39.2*F).

Density decreases at temps warmer than 4C and at temps colder than 4C.

Remember this?

How does salt effect that? I know salt water freezes at a lower temperature, and I believe it boils at a higher temperature.

Good question. Had to go to Google.


http://www.britannica.com/science/seawater

Just as water doesn't conduct electricity.

Sea level rise over the period of record has virtually nothing to do with melting ice on land surfaces. The melting and freezing cycle of sea ice is a net zero calculation in this context.

Ocean water temperatures have risen over the last century or so and when you warm water it expands. That is the cause of about 90% of sea level rise.

And I think Al Gore is an idiot.

I do remember that!

your son and daughter should adapt fine


you and I are F'ed, unless we drink a whole lot more beer and increase our flotation capabilities!

Well....if that's what we must do.

Now that one I already knew.. though it's better to keep the uninformed alive by saying that "pure" water doesn't conduct electricity. Any water found outside of a laboratory is going to conduct electricity quite well.

We should ask the "scientist" who are advocating for global warming how much the sea levels are going to rise each year for the next 100 years. They should be able to give us that info and it will be correct because global warming is settled science isn't it?

They don't know. History is a definitive record, forecasts are speculation. Forecasts from NOAH and USGS for my back yard over the next 100 years range from 0-6'. The rise since they began paying attention (over 100 years) has averaged 1.8 mm/year...in my back yard. Tampa is a bit higher at 2.0 mm/yr but it is thought that subsidence is at play to some degree. Our single-wides are not as heavy as their concrete skyline?

I WGAF in 100 years.

I just wish it would hurry up (I'm not getting any younger) and get here (the rising sea levels). Saw a map that predicted most of La. would be underwater and it was very likely I would have some oceanfront property.

Come on global warming!

There will be some bodacious snapper fishing amongst the high rise reefs in south Floriduh.

A lot of the environmentalists are always sighting man made pollution as being THE cause. It probably has an effect, but the earth is a lot cleaner today than it was 50 years ago.

I'm just curious about the temperature of the sun over the past 100 years and what effect it has on the climate. I never hear it mentioned much.

No where. Rising ocean level is a ruse by the climate changers as they continue to lie to the public. The daily tides rise more than anything man has effected.

Yes. This is why ice forms at the surface and not at the bottom.

To a non-believer you wouldn't understand. The global warming hype is a big lie.
The real intent behind all this voodoo science is for government to achieve more power to control its citizens.
Some enviro-socialists have admitted their true design as witness the writings of Naomi Kline.

NO water conducts electricity.

The impurities in water conduct electricity.