I know there are many here with a scientific bent, so perhaps someone
can explain the above idea? I thought that there was no land in the
Arctic. Therefore if the ice melts surely the water level cannot rise?
After all if you place Ice in a glass, then fill it to the brim when the
ice melts the glass simply stays full. If the polar cap is floating on
the sea then surely as the ice melts it has already displaced the volume
of water that its melting will create? At least that is what I thought
Archimedes proved. The Antarctic, being on land, is of course different,
but there again, I have read that the ice cap there is actually
increasing. Perplexed in frozen England.
--
Please reply to group,emails to designated
address are never read.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
I know there are many here with a scientific bent, so perhaps someone can
explain the above idea? I thought that there was no land in the Arctic.
Therefore if the ice melts surely the water level cannot rise? After all
if you place Ice in a glass, then fill it to the brim when the ice melts
the glass simply stays full. If the polar cap is floating on the sea then
surely as the ice melts it has already displaced the volume of water that
its melting will create? At least that is what I thought Archimedes
proved. The Antarctic, being on land, is of course different, but there
again, I have read that the ice cap there is actually increasing.
Perplexed in frozen England.
--
Please reply to group,emails to designated
address are never read.

It will start to rise once the average temperature of the water rises, from
thermal expansion.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
I know there are many here with a scientific bent, so perhaps someone can
explain the above idea? I thought that there was no land in the Arctic.
Therefore if the ice melts surely the water level cannot rise? After all if
you place Ice in a glass, then fill it to the brim when the ice melts the
glass simply stays full. If the polar cap is floating on the sea then
surely as the ice melts it has already displaced the volume of water that
its melting will create? At least that is what I thought Archimedes proved.
The Antarctic, being on land, is of course different, but there again, I
have read that the ice cap there is actually increasing. Perplexed in
frozen England.
--
Please reply to group,emails to designated
address are never read.

The floating ice around the North Pole, as you say, will not cause sea level
to rise if it melts. The problem is the Greenland ice cap which is a thick
layer of ice overlying solid land.

Stephen

On 09/01/2010 11:50, Broadback wrote:
I know there are many here with a scientific bent, so perhaps someone
can explain the above idea? I thought that there was no land in the
Arctic. Therefore if the ice melts surely the water level cannot rise?
After all if you place Ice in a glass, then fill it to the brim when the
ice melts the glass simply stays full. If the polar cap is floating on
the sea then surely as the ice melts it has already displaced the volume
of water that its melting will create? At least that is what I thought
Archimedes proved. The Antarctic, being on land, is of course different,
but there again, I have read that the ice cap there is actually
increasing. Perplexed in frozen England.

Not all the ice in the northern polar regions is floating sea ice. There
are large amounts in, for example, Greenland.

Whether you agree or disagree with this article, it does at least
explain quite how much ice is there.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/greenland.html

--
Rod

Broadback wrote:
I know there are many here with a scientific bent, so perhaps someone
can explain the above idea? I thought that there was no land in the
Arctic. Therefore if the ice melts surely the water level cannot rise?
After all if you place Ice in a glass, then fill it to the brim when the
ice melts the glass simply stays full. If the polar cap is floating on
the sea

It isn't. Largely its sitting on Greenland actually.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
I know there are many here with a scientific bent, so perhaps someone can
explain the above idea? I thought that there was no land in the Arctic.
Therefore if the ice melts surely the water level cannot rise? After all if
you place Ice in a glass, then fill it to the brim when the ice melts the
glass simply stays full. If the polar cap is floating on the sea then
surely as the ice melts it has already displaced the volume of water that
its melting will create? At least that is what I thought Archimedes proved.
The Antarctic, being on land, is of course different, but there again, I
have read that the ice cap there is actually increasing. Perplexed in
frozen England.
--
Please reply to group,emails to designated
address are never read

You're right of course. Your confusion is down to some really dodgy
reporting in the media, as ever. Terms get mixed up, incorrect terms used
and misapplied.

The melting ice caps are not directly the cause of the rise in sea level,
even without your analysis above consider how much water they would release
and how much that would raise levels when spread over the whole surface
area. There are a number of inter-related processes and I'm not entirely
certain I understand which dominates but here are a selection

The oceans are 3 dimensional and global temperatures are increasing. As the
water warms it expands in volume and as the bottom and sides of the oceans
are solid the only way is up. Obviously the oceans are a complex shape
underneath but for a cuboid container a 10% "linear" increase would be seen
as a 33% rise in the level. [I'm not suggesting that water is going to
expand 10% BTW!].

Global Warming, the process whereby the average temperatures across the
planet rise by a small amount, is believed likely to cause Climate Change.
We simply don't have the models to make accurate predictions, in particular
our models assume that changes will be linear whereas in reality there are
likely to be sudden and non-reversible steps in the process. One of
particular concern to us in the UK would be a change to the pattern of mass
air movement as we are kept much warmer by a flow of warm moist air from the
Atlantic. The reason you are currently freezing is because that air
currently isn't (temporarily I hope!) getting to us due to a block of high
pressure, very cold, air from the east.

Researchers admit, although generally not to the press as they would
mis-represent it, that they simply don't know what will happen although they
are pretty sure something will. I remember a UN conference back in the late
80's or early 90's where we were told that the best prediction was -70cm to
+180cm change in sea levels. Things have moved on a lot since then but the
uncertainty band in the predictions is still huge. The possible fall in
level by the way could be caused by GW causing a wetter environment at the
poles leading to more water becoming trapped as ice and snow.

So, to get back to the question:
Melting ice caps don't contribute much to the rise in sea level.
Melting ice caps and sea level rise are both a result of global warming.

On 09/01/2010 12:34, Calvin Sambrook wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
I know there are many here with a scientific bent, so perhaps someone
can explain the above idea? I thought that there was no land in the
Arctic. Therefore if the ice melts surely the water level cannot rise?
After all if you place Ice in a glass, then fill it to the brim when
the ice melts the glass simply stays full. If the polar cap is
floating on the sea then surely as the ice melts it has already
displaced the volume of water that its melting will create? At least
that is what I thought Archimedes proved. The Antarctic, being on
land, is of course different, but there again, I have read that the
ice cap there is actually increasing. Perplexed in frozen England.
--
Please reply to group,emails to designated
address are never read

You're right of course. Your confusion is down to some really dodgy
reporting in the media, as ever. Terms get mixed up, incorrect terms
used and misapplied.

The melting ice caps are not directly the cause of the rise in sea
level, even without your analysis above consider how much water they
would release and how much that would raise levels when spread over the
whole surface area. There are a number of inter-related processes and
I'm not entirely certain I understand which dominates but here are a
selection

The oceans are 3 dimensional and global temperatures are increasing. As
the water warms it expands in volume and as the bottom and sides of the
oceans are solid the only way is up. Obviously the oceans are a complex
shape underneath but for a cuboid container a 10% "linear" increase
would be seen as a 33% rise in the level. [I'm not suggesting that water
is going to expand 10% BTW!].

Global Warming, the process whereby the average temperatures across the
planet rise by a small amount, is believed likely to cause Climate
Change. We simply don't have the models to make accurate predictions, in
particular our models assume that changes will be linear whereas in
reality there are likely to be sudden and non-reversible steps in the
process. One of particular concern to us in the UK would be a change to
the pattern of mass air movement as we are kept much warmer by a flow of
warm moist air from the Atlantic. The reason you are currently freezing
is because that air currently isn't (temporarily I hope!) getting to us
due to a block of high pressure, very cold, air from the east.

Researchers admit, although generally not to the press as they would
mis-represent it, that they simply don't know what will happen although
they are pretty sure something will. I remember a UN conference back in
the late 80's or early 90's where we were told that the best prediction
was -70cm to +180cm change in sea levels. Things have moved on a lot
since then but the uncertainty band in the predictions is still huge.
The possible fall in level by the way could be caused by GW causing a
wetter environment at the poles leading to more water becoming trapped
as ice and snow.

So, to get back to the question:
Melting ice caps don't contribute much to the rise in sea level.
Melting ice caps and sea level rise are both a result of global warming.

Well it will if its the ice on Antarctica. That will give a 200' or so
increase in sea level.


--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Bill of Rights 1689

"Broadback" wrote in message
...

The ice melts and many icebergs break off and float down below Iceland where
the Gulf Stream turns back towards the Caribbean. These broken away
icebergs affect the temperature of water and can, and did in the 1700s, stop
the reversal of the water. The Gulf Stream is a conveyor belt bringing warm
water to our shores raising the temperature beyond what the latitude should
have. The point below Iceland is called the Odden pump.

If this happens then the UK drops into a mini ice age. Look at the land near
oceans on the east coast of North America and the Pacific at the same
latitude. They are very cold and we will be about the same. Polar bear
territory.

So, to get back to the question:
Melting ice caps don't contribute much to the rise in sea level.
Melting ice caps and sea level rise are both a result of global warming.

Well it will if its the ice on Antarctica. That will give a 200' or so
increase in sea level.



Perhaps true, but it's only the Antarctic peninsular that is warming; most
of the area is getting colder, and building up ice.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Chris Hogg saying
something like:

Polar bear territory.

Could have sworn I saw one yesterday!

If it was a bit mad, perhaps it was a bi-polar bear.

Is that two, or one that swings both ways?