I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add
enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they
are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the
cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1

In ,
Rebel1 typed:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

Here is an alternate, and probably more appropriate, test that you could
try.

Start with a rectangular fish tank. Place dirt and rocks in it such that
the dirt and rocks are high up on one end and have the dirt and rocks slope
down toward the other end to where they are at zero height on the other end.

Then, fill it half way with water and place ice in the water and also on the
dirt/rock "hillside" that is above the water line. That would more
accurately replicate the way that glaciers are on earth -- meaning that the
glaciers are both on top of the ground/dirt/rocks and also partially in the
ocean where the ocean meets the ground/dirt/rocks.

Wait until the ice in the fish tank melts. Let us know if the water level
rises in the fish tank as the ice melts.

Wanna take a guess as to what will happen to the water level?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:54:46 -0400, "Jake29"
wrote:

- meaning that the
glaciers are both on top of the ground/dirt/rocks and also partially in the
ocean where the ocean meets the ground/dirt/rocks.

You can see floating ice bergs from an airplane

Watch a Glacier break down into the ocean from a ship.

Rebel,

You're focusing on the North Pole where everything is floating in the
ocean. Think about the South Pole where much of the snow and ice is on land
and will run into the oceans as it melts.And of course there's lots of snow
and ice on North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.
As you can see I don't think much of your ice cube experiment.

Dave M.

In ,
Oren typed:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:54:46 -0400, "Jake29"
wrote:

- meaning that the
glaciers are both on top of the ground/dirt/rocks and also partially
in the ocean where the ocean meets the ground/dirt/rocks.

You can see floating ice bergs from an airplane

Yes, and depending on who the co-pilot is, and what his mental state at the
time is, you might get a really close-up view of the icebergs and glaciers;
at least for a few seconds before the crash.

What? Too soon?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:54:46 -0400, "Jake29"
wrote:

In ,
Rebel1 typed:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

Here is an alternate, and probably more appropriate, test that you could
try.

Start with a rectangular fish tank. Place dirt and rocks in it such that
the dirt and rocks are high up on one end and have the dirt and rocks slope
down toward the other end to where they are at zero height on the other end.

Then, fill it half way with water and place ice in the water and also on the
dirt/rock "hillside" that is above the water line. That would more
accurately replicate the way that glaciers are on earth -- meaning that the
glaciers are both on top of the ground/dirt/rocks and also partially in the
ocean where the ocean meets the ground/dirt/rocks.

Wait until the ice in the fish tank melts. Let us know if the water level
rises in the fish tank as the ice melts.

Wanna take a guess as to what will happen to the water level?

Yeah, The water level will drop.

There will be two reasons:

1. Some of the water will be absorbed by the ground/dirt/rocks.

2. Some of the remaining water will evaporate because Al Gore says it
will eventually get so friggin hot because of global warming that the
water will cause that to happen. Not to mention that California
congress woman, Barbara Lee, says that same global warming will force
women to become prostitutes.

On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:40:45 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

Not to mention that California
congress woman, Barbara Lee, says that same global warming will force
women to become prostitutes.

That's a fact Jack

Where do these people come from?

_Miller Time: Climate change causing prostitution increase?_

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4148323413001/miller-time-climate-change-causing-prostitution-increase/?#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/qdyx9ar

In article ,
Gordon Shumway wrote:

water will cause that to happen. Not to mention that California
congress woman, Barbara Lee, says that same global warming will force
women to become prostitutes.

Finally, an upside to global warming!
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

"Rebel1" wrote in message
I posting this here because there a good
analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way
with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the
bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e.,
they are all floating). Now put a mark at the
water level and wait until the cubes all melt.
Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1

When the ice began to float, the contents reached
equilibrium. The small amount of ice above water
line would suggest that the level would rise as it
melted. Not so. The ice crystal structure is
larger
than the liquid therefore it will float because
the
weight per volume is less. As the ice melts it
goes
back to the liquid structure which is smaller.
Therefore,
the water line you marked won't change.
Make sense?
phil k.

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Per Rebel1:
An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add
enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they
are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the
cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

I'm no geologist but AFIK, the glaciers are not floating in the ocean. I
think that's what icebergs are. Glaciers are sitting on land, so that
when they melt their water is added to the ocean. ref:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-glaciers-melt/


Sounds to me like the math/physics are pretty straightforward assuming
that the volume of the oceans and the volume of the glaciers are known
but the wild card seems to be how fast the glaciers are melting. viz:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-predicted/

--
Pete Cresswell

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 6:36:18 PM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

No thinking involved, on their part...

Rebel1 wrote in :

I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add
enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they
are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the
cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

That's not really relevant, because it models only sea ice. You need to consider
everything:

-- Most of the Arctic ice cap is sea ice, floating on the surface of the ocean. Melting this ice
won't change sea level significantly, because it's displacing an equal mass of ocean water.
(There will be a slight increase because fresh water is less dense than salt water.)

-- Most of the Antarctic ice cap, and part of the Arctic ice cap (Greenland) is on land. Melting
this will cause sea level to rise, because it isn't displacing any ocean water now, and most
of it will wind up in the ocean. (Not all of it, because there's a substantial basin in the
Antarctic interior that will become a large freshwater lake if enough of the southern ice
melts.)

-- Part of the Antarctic ice cap is resting on the continental shelf, *below* the surface of the
ocean. Melting this will cause sea level to *drop* because it's displacing an equal *volume*
of ocean water, not an equal mass.

So what happens to sea level if the polar ice caps begin to melt depends heavily on how
much of which ice cap liquifies.

On 4/2/2015 6:25 PM, David L. Martel wrote:
Rebel,

You're focusing on the North Pole where everything is floating in the
ocean. Think about the South Pole where much of the snow and ice is on
land and will run into the oceans as it melts.And of course there's lots
of snow and ice on North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.
As you can see I don't think much of your ice cube experiment.

Dave M.

Good point.

R1

On 4/2/2015 9:30 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Rebel1 wrote in :

I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add
enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they
are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the
cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

That's not really relevant, because it models only sea ice. You need to consider
everything:

-- Most of the Arctic ice cap is sea ice, floating on the surface of the ocean. Melting this ice
won't change sea level significantly, because it's displacing an equal mass of ocean water.
(There will be a slight increase because fresh water is less dense than salt water.)

-- Most of the Antarctic ice cap, and part of the Arctic ice cap (Greenland) is on land. Melting
this will cause sea level to rise, because it isn't displacing any ocean water now, and most
of it will wind up in the ocean. (Not all of it, because there's a substantial basin in the
Antarctic interior that will become a large freshwater lake if enough of the southern ice
melts.)

-- Part of the Antarctic ice cap is resting on the continental shelf, *below* the surface of the
ocean. Melting this will cause sea level to *drop* because it's displacing an equal *volume*
of ocean water, not an equal mass.

So what happens to sea level if the polar ice caps begin to melt depends heavily on how
much of which ice cap liquifies.

Excellent points.

R1

On 04/02/2015 07:36 PM, Bob F wrote:
Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html



Hint: If you own inland property in Florida, you'll soon have an ocean view.

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 6:58:41 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:40:45 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

Not to mention that California
congress woman, Barbara Lee, says that same global warming will force
women to become prostitutes.

That's a fact Jack

Where do these people come from?

_Miller Time: Climate change causing prostitution increase?_

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4148323413001/miller-time-climate-change-causing-prostitution-increase/?#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/qdyx9ar

How about Kerry telling US diplomats that they need to prepare
for climate change refugees? There are refugees, that's for sure.
Fleeing, Syria, Libya, Iraq... We have ISIS and other muslim terrorists
killing hundreds every day, leveling whole towns. Putin is taking
the Ukraine, Iran is buidling nukes. And instead of focusing on
the clear and present danger, Kerry is talking about climate change
refugees.

In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land.
When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?

Rebel1 wrote:
....
Excellent points.

here's a few mo

as the mass of the water held in ice at the south
pole decreases we get two additional effects, one is
that the overall ocean level increases for the northern
hemisphere increases not only from the amount of new
water added to the oceans but the rebound from the water
currently attracted to the gravity effect from that
much mass. the other effect is that as the cold water
warms up we also get an added boost in volume.

one thing i don't see anyone mention very often is
the amount of water that is being pumped from the
ground, used in sewage/water supply systems and then
dumped into the oceans. if we can reverse the trend
and impound more of this water in reservoirs and
ground water that can help slow down the rate of
ocean level increases.

where there are huge areas of inland seas below
sea level we could pipe sea water into them to help
moderate temperatures and evaporate more water into
the air to increase rainfalls/snowpacks downwind. this
would mean some plans for harvesting the salt from such
seas to keep them from getting too salty, but last i
knew there is a good market for sea salt... we do
really need a good plan to address the Salton Sea mess
anyways...

as it goes, where one of my relatives is at he's lost
1ft of sea level and has only another foot and a half
before that is gone. another 20-30 years and it is
likely where he is at will be close to under water.


songbird

"Rebel 1" axes in message
...
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way(sic) with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e.,
they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until
the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1



In the coming Hydrocene Era, life on planet Earth will be forced to adapt to
a marine lifestyle or face extinction. London, England (aka: the tiny
island nation) will be the first to submit to rising sea levels, forcing
these buck-toothed pasty-faces to run for higher ground.

Discuss.........................

On 4/2/2015 7:36 PM, Bob F wrote:

Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html


How much glacier, and how much ocean?

Is that like saying if you spill your
drink in the pool, the whole neighborhood
will be under six inches of water?

Good right wing thinking, eh?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/2/2015 7:39 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I'm no geologist but AFIK, the glaciers are not floating in the ocean. I
think that's what icebergs are. Glaciers are sitting on land, so that
when they melt their water is added to the ocean. ref:



What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?

Good catch, Mr. Cresswell.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/2/2015 11:23 PM, Rebel1 wrote:
On 4/2/2015 9:30 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
-- Part of the Antarctic ice cap is resting on the continental shelf,
*below* the surface of the
ocean. Melting this will cause sea level to *drop* because it's
displacing an equal *volume*
of ocean water, not an equal mass.

So what happens to sea level if the polar ice caps begin to melt
depends heavily on how
much of which ice cap liquifies.

Excellent points.

R1

Is that left wing thinking?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/3/2015 7:41 AM, trader_4 wrote:
How about Kerry telling US diplomats that they need to prepare
for climate change refugees? There are refugees, that's for sure.
Fleeing, Syria, Libya, Iraq... We have ISIS and other muslim terrorists
killing hundreds every day, leveling whole towns. Putin is taking
the Ukraine, Iran is buidling nukes. And instead of focusing on
the clear and present danger, Kerry is talking about climate change
refugees.


Wonder what they will talk about, when the Republicans
start investigating corruption?

Scheduled to start investigation in year 2156, at
this rate.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/3/2015 9:47 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?


Groupthink. Collective wisdom, as dictated
by the left party leaders. No room for
facts or independant thinking.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Mark Storkamp writes:

In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land.
When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?

Yeah, the comment is a bit out of line isn't it.
We can only speculate why Rebel1 thought he knew better than
all the worlds scientists.

But then, Rebel1 claimed "there are good analytical minds here".
(Yes, I laughed so hard, I almost choked.)

Maybe it's not so out of line to guess he was referencing
those mass poster nut jobs that live in my kill file.

The idea that scientists are scammers making things up for profit
does seem to come from one political party.

But only Rebel1 can explain why he suddenly thought he was
smarter than a bunch of people that actually studied the subject.

I wonder if he actually performed his "tall glass" experiment.
I bet it was a tall jelly glass and a sharpie.
We all know calibrated beakers, are for pinko scientists.

--
Dan Espen

But we don't live in a glass of iced water do we, and also hotter water also
takes up more room. Its not just the ice. I'm probably wasting my time
replying to this, but it is an interesting subject, nonetheless.
The current situation is that the ice is also stuck in a place and when it
melts is is free to flow to other places, and as although ice takes up more
room than water due to its crystalline form, the fact that much of it is not
actually in the sea has to be borne in mind here. A glassier is a frozen
river flowing to the sea after all, and if it thaws that water will get to
the sea faster.


Of course evaporation has a part to play in the opposite direction, but as
sea levels are rising, I think the trend has to be for this to continue to
places in the world where land is low lying.
End of waffle.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Col. Edmund Burke" wrote in message
...
"Rebel 1" axes in message
...
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way(sic) with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e.,
they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until
the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1



In the coming Hydrocene Era, life on planet Earth will be forced to adapt
to a marine lifestyle or face extinction. London, England (aka: the tiny
island nation) will be the first to submit to rising sea levels, forcing
these buck-toothed pasty-faces to run for higher ground.

Discuss.........................

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
But we don't live in a glass of iced water do we, and also hotter water
also takes up more room. Its not just the ice. I'm probably wasting my
time replying to this, but it is an interesting subject, nonetheless.

Brian? Wasting yer time? Is that 'cause you figgure yerself to be smarter
'n this feller?
Typically limey to think so, Brian. LOL

The current situation is that the ice is also stuck in a place and when it
melts is is free to flow to other places, and as although ice takes up
more room than water due to its crystalline form, the fact that much of it
is not actually in the sea has to be borne in mind here. A glassier is a
frozen river flowing to the sea after all, and if it thaws that water
will get to the sea faster.


Of course evaporation has a part to play in the opposite direction, but as
sea levels are rising, I think the trend has to be for this to continue to
places in the world where land is low lying.
End of waffle.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Col. Edmund Burke" wrote in message
...
"Rebel 1" axes in message
...
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way(sic) with ice cubes.
Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1



In the coming Hydrocene Era, life on planet Earth will be forced to adapt
to a marine lifestyle or face extinction. London, England (aka: the tiny
island nation) will be the first to submit to rising sea levels, forcing
these buck-toothed pasty-faces to run for higher ground.

Discuss.........................

Dan Espen writes:
Mark Storkamp writes:

In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and
wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.


[snip]

We can only speculate why Rebel1 thought he knew better than
all the worlds scientists.

But then, Rebel1 claimed "there are good analytical minds here".
(Yes, I laughed so hard, I almost choked.)

Most of these folks see some headline written by a clueless
reporter (often from both sides of the debate) and elaborate
on that, rather than actually digging into the science itself.

There are several contributors to planetary mean sea level (MSL).

- Mel****er from land-based glacial ice
- Fossil water runoff
- Isostatic rebound
- Wind

The first, mel****er from land-based glacial ice
encompasses the high altitude glaciers (e.g. in the
himalayas, upper Rockies, Peru, mt. Shasta, etc), the greenland
icecap and the antarctic icecap.

The second, fossil water runoff is from pumping
geologic water from underground for irrigation and
other human uses. This adds water to the hydrologic
cycle which raises sea level (in fact, this alone is
responsible for something like 40% of the sea level
rise in the 20th century).

The third, isostatic rebound, appears to lower sea
level at certain measuring stations as the land continues
to recover from the weight of a mile of ice 10kya.
A counterpoint of this is areas like southern La., where
the land is sinking due to silting at the mouth of
the mighty muddy.

The largest two regions of land-based ice are the
greenland icecap and the antarctica icecap. In both
cases, the amount of time required to melt 100% of the
ice is measured in thousands of years (note that the air
temperature in antarctica is below freezing for 10 months
of the year). Since the land ice in antarctica is surrounded
by sea ice (which can melt more rapidly as the temperature of
the water it is floating on changes with time, natural cycles
and other forcings), a concern is that if all the sea ice
melts, it will open the way for the land-based glaciers to
flow more rapidly towards the sea and calve bergs, which will
inevitably cause higher sea levels.

As for Wind, certain coastal areas measure higher sea
levels than others due to the wind pushing water towards
the coast (leaving aside any tidal effects).

All this makes it difficult to measure MSL accurately
using surface based measurements. Modern measurements
use satellite altimetry, which generally requires some
amount of correction due to orbital decay characteristics
and instrumental differences beween generations of
measurement satellites.

Current global sea ice area:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg

Current global sea ice anomoly (i.e. difference from average since 1979)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...aly.global.png

Global, Arctic and Antarctic ice area:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NS...SeaIceArea.gif

Note that the planet currently has _more_ sea ice than the
average since 1979 (when satellite measurements began). Note
also two years ago, when there was 2 million km2 less.

As others have pointed out, the melting of the sea ice has
effectively no effect on MSL; however it does alter the
albedo of the pole(s) which may reduce the amount of
insolation reflected back to space, leading to
additional warming of the surface water.

On 4/2/2015 5:40 PM, Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add
enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they
are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the
cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1

Icebergs are not glaciers -- they are pieces of glaciers which fell off.
When they melt they will not raise the level of the ocean but when they
fell into the ocean in the first place they _did_ raise the level. If you
don't believe that, fill your hypothetical glass to the brim and then, very
gently, place an ice cube into it and see what happens.

Unless you've actually been there you would not believe the amount of ice
covering the land in Greenland. When it melts, whether in the form of
icebergs or not, you better believe that the level of the ocean will rise.
And Greenland has a fraction of the amount of ice that Antarctica does.

Per Stormin Mormon:
What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?

Mainly bagels from the day-old shelf...
--
Pete Cresswell

"Rebel 1" axes in message
...
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way(sic) with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e.,
they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until
the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?

In my case, it didn't.

R1

Different scenario. Some of the melting ice is sitting on land and will
be added to the sea in the form of water.

Repeat your experiment filling the glass with ice, add water to the rim.
Now set a couple more cubes on the rim of the glass. That is closer
to what may eventually happen.

On 4/3/2015 10:21 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?


Christopher A. Young

Why would you put toast in your toaster? I only take it out.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:21:08 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/3/2015 10:21 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?


Christopher A. Young

Why would you put toast in your toaster? I only take it out.

....to reheat or make it darker. (don't make French toast in it)

beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring......

On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:07:54 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?

Mainly bagels from the day-old shelf...

You toast day old bagels in your toaster from the day old shelf of
toasted bagels?

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/3/2015 10:21 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?


Christopher A. Young

Why would you put toast in your toaster? I only take it out.

Pretty sure he has a hot water heater, too...........

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring......

There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to
limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going
to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company
has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just
pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products
you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going
to pass the cost on to the consumer.

And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money
in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of
what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar.
Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy
field too.

In ,
Mark Storkamp belched:
In article , "Bob F"
wrote:

Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.

An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then
add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom
(i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level
and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your
mark?

In my case, it didn't.


Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on
land. When
they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying
experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right
wing thinking"

What is good left wing thinking then?

oxymoron

On 4/3/2015 2:24 PM, bob_villa wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:21:08 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/3/2015 10:21 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?


Christopher A. Young

Why would you put toast in your toaster? I only take it out.

...to reheat or make it darker. (don't make French toast in it)


I do reheat leftover blueberry pancakes in it.