On Nov 1, 2018, George Ledo wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 31, 2018, DocBenWiz wrote:
Interesting about supposed oceans riding, supposedly due to glaciers melting. Simple suggested science experiment. Fill a glass 34 full of ice cubes. Then fill the glass with water right up to the rim, but not overflowing. Now just let the ice fully melt.Then see if the water "rises" and overflows the glass!? You see, it's a thing called volume ( taken up by the ice cubes). So the volume of the glaciers is the same idea. Melt and no way they cause the ocean to rise!!

Okay, I'll bite.

Just like with the ice cubes, most of a floating glacier's volume is underwater. So if only the volume that's underwater melts, the level won't change.

The problem is that so many glaciers have a heckuva lot of ice above the water. Some of them are hundreds of feet thick and cover hundreds of square miles, or much more. Only takes a couple of minutes looking at photos online to see them.

Now, how much would the sea level rise? I don't have a clue, but all that melted ice would have to go somewhere.

On Nov 1, 2018, George Ledo wrote:
So would the premise assume that all the volume from glaciers would be picked up by the atmosphere and not by the oceans?

On Nov 1, 2018, 0pus wrote:
Gee, I thought that the glaciers were on the land, not in the water. So the ice mass not currently in the water is slipping into the water as it melts. Once it is IN the water, the level doesn't rise; it is the ice that is NOT currently in the water that is responsible for the rising water.

On Nov 1, 2018, RNK wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 31, 2018, DocBenWiz wrote:
Interesting about supposed oceans riding, supposedly due to glaciers melting. Simple suggested science experiment. Fill a glass 34 full of ice cubes. Then fill the glass with water right up to the rim, but not overflowing. Now just let the ice fully melt.Then see if the water "rises" and overflows the glass!? You see, it's a thing called volume ( taken up by the ice cubes). So the volume of the glaciers is the same idea. Melt and no way they cause the ocean to rise!!

Definitely interested to hear what the global alarmists think about this?


Ron/Landmark, are you there? Why is this?

It is widely believed that melting of floating sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Is this really true?
Let us think of a simple experiment we are all familiar with: imagine an ice cube floating in a glass of water. What happens to the water level in the glass when the ice cube melts? Right, nothing happens. The ice cube displaces its own weight in the underlying water and the water level remains constant when the ice melts, because the melting process replaces the water which has already been displaced by the ice. This effect is known as Archimedes’ principle.

Now let us consider a slightly different experiment. It’s again water with some ice in it, but now the water is salty (like the real ocean). The blue color has no effect on the experiment, but it shows the ice cube in the water more clearly.
It took quite a time to melt all ice but finally it was done and the result is clear: The water level is higher!
Doesn’t that contradict Archimedes’ principle?

According to Noerdlinger and Brower (2007) it doesn’t because the principle refers to weight and not volume. The salt in sea water raises its density from about 1000 kg/m3 for salt free water to 1026 kg/m3 for normal sea water. The ice however is nearly salt free because of a process called “brine rejection” (the salt from sea water doesn’t enter the crystal structure of ice).
When the ice melts then this is a kind of freshening of the ocean and the overall salinity is lowered. The lower salinity, the lower density and the larger volume.

The melting of sea ice therefore doesn’t increase the mass but it increases the volume and therefore causes the water level to rise. After Noerdlinger’s and Brower’s calculations the volume of the meltwater is about 2.6% larger than the displaced sea water.
But what is the actual relevance of this effect? Does is contribute significantly to sea level rise? Before answering this questions we should deal with an objection raised by Jenkins and Holland (2007). They are arguing that a huge amount of energy is required to melt the ice. They find that the energy comes from the ocean, as the albedo (reflectivity) of ice is very high, it doesn’t absorb much solar energy. Hence the ocean will cool a bit, causing the density of the briny water to increase (It should be noted that fresh water exhibits the peculiar behavior that its density increases as the temperature falls almost all the way to freezing; but just before freezing, the density is reduced. Briny water does not exhibit that reversal). The cooling therefore offsets the density decrease at least partially in the words of Jenkins and Holland.

As they put it, Noerdlinger’s and Bower’s result is a good first approximation in cold waters where most floating ice is found. The density of cold water is mainly determined by its salinity while for warmer water temperature is also an important factor. Therefore in warmer water the cooling effect matters.

Back to the question, if this effect contributes to sea level rise in a relevant way. Shepherd et al 2010 examine this. They combine satellite observations for an assessment of the loss of floating ice. According to this 743 km3/yr floating ice was lost in average between 1994 and 2004. They further conclude that 1.6% of current sea level rise (about 3.1 mm per year) is caused by loss of sea ice. This is not very much compared to other sources. However the authors assert that this effect should be considered for future assessments of global sea level rise.

Summary
It is shown that the melting of ice floating on the ocean will introduce a volume of water about 2.6 per cent greater than that of the originally displaced sea water. The melting of floating ice in a global warming will cause the ocean to rise. If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm. The sliding of grounded ice into the sea, however, produces a mean water level rise in two parts; some of the rise is delayed. The first part, while the ice floats, is equal to the volume of displaced sea water. The second part, equal to 2.6 per cent of the first, is contributed as it melts. These effects result from the difference in volume of equal weights of fresh and salt water. This component of sea rise is apparently unrecognized in the literature to date, although it can be interpreted as a form of halosteric sea level change by regarding the displaced salt water and the meltwater (even before melting) as a unit. Although salinity changes are known to affect sea level, all existing analyses omit our calculated volume change. We present a protocol that can be used to calculate global sea level rise on the basis of the addition of meltwater from grounded and floating ice; of course thermosteric volume change must be added.

On Nov 1, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:
Ron to be clear I was not taking a position, just clarifying what was said.

It seems to me, and I am not firmly on either side of this idiotic argument, that if ice that is normally ice melts it has to go somewhere. Not ALL ice is suspended in water. So if a land formation has lots of ice that has been frozen for centuries melting the run off must go somewhere. Seems pretty common sense to me.

But mind you I have NO idea if it is a natural cycle, if man causes it, if it is a bad thing or how much an ocean will rise because of it. PLUS I can be WAY off on this idea and never know.

On Nov 2, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:
But I'm not arguing with them. I don't have a counter opinion. My objections are in implementation.

But mind you I have NO idea if it is a natural cycle, if man causes it, if it is a bad thing or how much an ocean will rise because of it.