Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Mr.Fitnah]

can you give me a chance since I've never asked? if the water level is not affected by melting of ice, why is there such panic about Arctic ice melting? Thank you.

the panic is not mine. water level is affected by ice melting on greenland for example. that is like pouring water into a bucket, the level will rise. already swimming ice will do nothing.

but if the oceans are warming, then the floating ice will melt, too. and if the oceans are warming there will be other consequences.

there is much misinformation which feeds panic but there is much misinformation to counter this "panic", too, see kittenkoder.

so you are not on the Al Gore "bandwagon"?

It appears KK is the one on the Gore Band wagon. She is the one who see an impact from floating ice melt.Run off from grounded water is a different story .In anycase the "proof of man made global warming is garbage of the first order.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I have already stated the science behind it in the thread,.

No ,you have not, you have demonstrated a profound failure to grasp the relationship between volume, weight and density.
Ice of the same weight of water, takes up more volume than water as it is less dense, as the ice melts its volume decreases , it density increases and its weight remain the same .

 

[L.K.Eder]

I have already stated the science behind it in the thread,.

No ,you have not, you have demonstrated a profound failure to grasp the relationship between volume, weight and density.
Ice of the same weight of water, takes up more volume than water as it is less dense, as the ice melts its volume decreases , it density increases and its weight remain the same .

give up, it is easier to keep your average house cat from crapping on the bathroom carpet by rubbing its nose in its own turds than to get kittenkoder to admit a mistake.

 

[KittenKoder]

I have already stated the science behind it in the thread,.

No ,you have not, you have demonstrated a profound failure to grasp the relationship between volume, weight and density.
Ice of the same weight of water, takes up more volume than water as it is less dense, as the ice melts its volume decreases , it density increases and its weight remain the same .

give up, it is easier to keep your average house cat from crapping on the bathroom carpet by rubbing its nose in its own turds than to get kittenkoder to admit a mistake.

*really evil grin* You have proven my point correct. Now, for the sad sad hammer fall. The fact that you can't keep your own lies straight is what has shown my opinion of you as fact. I said, a while ago, that 90% of the ice in water was below the surface, the funny thing I was wrong, and you said I was but did not show how I was wrong so I ignored your point. You really should have stuck with that. I was wrong because of one fact, salt. Salt water is denser than pure water, and salt doesn't freeze, so the ice in bergs would float up a bit more, the amount would be about 85% under water. But now you completely turned a 360 in a failed attempt to discredit me by saying my original post was accurate and claiming credit for that point ... so yeah, you are a troll, and worst, you are an idiot troll. Thanks for playing moron.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Salt water freezes ,just at about 3 degrees lower than pure water.
Since the ice is just as salty as the water the have the same same initial density .
The equation and weight volume density ratio remains the same.

 

[L.K.Eder]

No ,you have not, you have demonstrated a profound failure to grasp the relationship between volume, weight and density.
Ice of the same weight of water, takes up more volume than water as it is less dense, as the ice melts its volume decreases , it density increases and its weight remain the same .

give up, it is easier to keep your average house cat from crapping on the bathroom carpet by rubbing its nose in its own turds than to get kittenkoder to admit a mistake.

*really evil grin* You have proven my point correct. Now, for the sad sad hammer fall. The fact that you can't keep your own lies straight is what has shown my opinion of you as fact. I said, a while ago, that 90% of the ice in water was below the surface, the funny thing I was wrong, and you said I was but did not show how I was wrong so I ignored your point. You really should have stuck with that. I was wrong because of one fact, salt. Salt water is denser than pure water, and salt doesn't freeze, so the ice in bergs would float up a bit more, the amount would be about 85% under water. But now you completely turned a 360 in a failed attempt to discredit me by saying my original post was accurate and claiming credit for that point ... so yeah, you are a troll, and worst, you are an idiot troll. Thanks for playing moron.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/82069-global-cooling-chills-summer-15.html#post1401645

when a floating iceberg melts the water level remains about the same.

frozen water is less dense, that's why the ice is floating. ice does not displace more water than liquid water, unless you apply force to keep it down.

imagine pushing an inflatable ball underwater, stop pushing, it will pop up. same happens with icebergs. if not trapped they will pop up and about 10 percent of its volume will be above sea level. that accounts for the density gradient between the solid and liquid phase.

you should worry about the greenland ice field melting and the patagonian and antarctic ice fields melting, that will have an influence on the sea level.

and don't pay attention to KittenKoder.

Um ... wow ... you are clueless to science. Put an ice cube in a bowl of water, it's that simple to see, most of the cube is under the surface. You environuts really don't know much about science. I mean, that's fucking fourth grade science.

yes, kittenkoder, most of the ice cube will be under water, i'd say about 90%. what would you say?

did you even read my post, you little bullshitting moron?

ETA: since i try to pay less attention to the bullshit artist i missed that you labeled me an "environut", well done.

complete deflection. what about the water level, i always said about 90% or about 10%. guess what, i know that ocean water is salty. does not change anything about the water level after melting.

your gymnastics are awful. next time you accuse me of lying, support it with something, ok?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

If the ice were salty and the water was fresh, there would be a net gain in level after the melt. As salt water is more dense, this doesn't help KK kause though.
But we now know who flunked 4th grade science.
Im sure they let her through to the next grade anyway.

 

[KittenKoder]

Some dead horses get boring after a while. I recommend you both learn something, Fitnah science, Eder honesty.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It inst boring at all , this is a first for me I have never seen anyone argue against proven science like you have.
Your post about the ice floating higher would be true if the ice were fresh water ice floating in sea water, it isnt , the salinity is the same as the sea water so the buoyancy ration is the same as if both were fresh water.
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level
But this is the opposite effect you are trying to prove.(The water level drops)
You will never be able to prove ( that the result of the ice melt results in lower water levels )what you want to prove so you will have to make it all personal.

 

[KittenKoder]

It inst boring at all , this is a first for me I have never seen anyone argue against proven science like you have.
Your post about the ice floating higher would be true if the ice were fresh water ice floating in sea water, it isnt , the salinity is the same as the sea water so the buoyancy ration is the same as if both were fresh water.
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level
But this is the opposite effect you are trying to prove.(The water level drops)
You will never be able to prove ( that the result of the ice melt results in lower water levels )what you want to prove so you will have to make it all personal.

You haven't met Chris and Old Rocks?

 

[amiam*]

We had better stop those volcanoes under the arctic ice.

Grasping at straws?

They must be causing the land based glaciers to melt as well.

Another straw for you to grasp....consider each nuclear sub as a heat source, does the introduction of these heat sources into the arctic oceans have an affect on the arctic ice?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Some dead horses get boring after a while. I recommend you both learn something, Fitnah science, Eder honesty.

getting advice from kittenkoder about science and honesty is like getting advice from the grand ayatollah khamenei on free elections and fellatio.

and since kittenkoder insists on being a complete brain dead ass, i will post this, too.

this is from the same thread where i introduced the about ten percent/ 90 percent number. old rocks countered kittenkoder with around 9 %, because he actually knows what he is talking about. Kittenkoder was putting it around 30 percent. that would make 30 percent of ice being above the surface. and now she has the chuzpe to claim she is putting out the 90 percent number for a long time.

d'oh.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/82069-global-cooling-chills-summer-15.html#post1401003

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

When H2O molecules are frozen they form crystaline structures with a LOT of air trapped, smaller molecules. Since the molecule itself doesn't change size liquid H2O can't fill in the empty space, and the ice itself becomes 30% (somewhere around there) larger in volume. It's why when you take a bottle of water and freeze it it explodes (or expands if it's stretchable enough).

No, sweet little kitten, the figure is much more like 9%. And how would water get air into it if it is not in contact with air, as in when in a bottle? I suggest the you look up basic science before you start blathering and making a fool of yourself.


snip

 

[KittenKoder]

"Somewhere around there" is already an admission of not knowing ... try being honest Eder.

 

[KittenKoder]

For those who don't realize water expands when frozen, take a mason jar, fill with water, seal, and freeze. Go ahead, nothing will happen, by your own flawed knowledge.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It inst boring at all , this is a first for me I have never seen anyone argue against proven science like you have.
Your post about the ice floating higher would be true if the ice were fresh water ice floating in sea water, it isnt , the salinity is the same as the sea water so the buoyancy ration is the same as if both were fresh water.
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level
But this is the opposite effect you are trying to prove.(The water level drops)
You will never be able to prove ( that the result of the ice melt results in lower water levels )what you want to prove so you will have to make it all personal.

You haven't met Chris and Old Rocks?

They are both on ignore and presumably wrong about everything, I dont expect any different from them, you and dive on the other hand, I expected you both to be open to reason and be aware of and accepting of plain old facts. Especially widely known provable facts.

If all the arctic ice melts the water table would also drop drastically. So ... to keep the water table at the right level more water from someplace else has to go into the ocean to raise it, since Ice takes up more space than water.

you have stated that part of the ice floats above the water , yet you refuse to realize that the weight of the ice does not change, only its density changes (mass of 1, density of 9.2), when it melts and the ice returns to water (mass of 1 ,density of 1) the denisty decreases no water is left floating above the water ,the displacement is gone , they are said to be in dynamic equilibrium .
Just retract your statement or prove it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

"Somewhere around there" is already an admission of not knowing ... try being honest Eder.

honest, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No ,you have not, you have demonstrated a profound failure to grasp the relationship between volume, weight and density.
Ice of the same weight of water, takes up more volume than water as it is less dense, as the ice melts its volume decreases , it density increases and its weight remain the same .

give up, it is easier to keep your average house cat from crapping on the bathroom carpet by rubbing its nose in its own turds than to get kittenkoder to admit a mistake.

*really evil grin* You have proven my point correct. Now, for the sad sad hammer fall. The fact that you can't keep your own lies straight is what has shown my opinion of you as fact. I said, a while ago, that 90% of the ice in water was below the surface, the funny thing I was wrong, and you said I was but did not show how I was wrong so I ignored your point. You really should have stuck with that. I was wrong because of one fact, salt. Salt water is denser than pure water, and salt doesn't freeze, so the ice in bergs would float up a bit more, the amount would be about 85% under water. But now you completely turned a 360 in a failed attempt to discredit me by saying my original post was accurate and claiming credit for that point ... so yeah, you are a troll, and worst, you are an idiot troll. Thanks for playing moron.

"Somewhere around there" is already an admission of not knowing ... try being honest Eder.

now, care to explain how these two comments result in honesty?

in one part of the thread you state something incorrect (you are admitting now that you did not know better), later in that thread you get educated by two posters about the scientific facts.

somehow you processed this information and in your confabulating mind it was you who presented this basic fact. seek help.

and then in this thread you accuse me of this:

Nope, I don't. I have an asshole on my ass ... just wish it was only my asshole. You are trolling, almost everything I have stated as fact you eventually repeat then claim that I never said it. You are nothing original, just a simple minded (if any) troll, but thanks for playing.

i almost admire your brazenness.

 

[Chris]

We had better stop those volcanoes under the arctic ice.

Grasping at straws?

They must be causing the land based glaciers to melt as well.

Another straw for you to grasp....consider each nuclear sub as a heat source, does the introduction of these heat sources into the arctic oceans have an affect on the arctic ice?

Nuclear subs are melting the ice cap and the glaciers???!!!!

 

[KittenKoder]

Grasping at straws?

They must be causing the land based glaciers to melt as well.

Another straw for you to grasp....consider each nuclear sub as a heat source, does the introduction of these heat sources into the arctic oceans have an affect on the arctic ice?

Nuclear subs are melting the ice cap and the glaciers???!!!!

No more of a narrow minded stretch than what you post. no less crazy to.

 

[DiveCon]

Another straw for you to grasp....consider each nuclear sub as a heat source, does the introduction of these heat sources into the arctic oceans have an affect on the arctic ice?

Nuclear subs are melting the ice cap and the glaciers???!!!!

No more of a narrow minded stretch than what you post. no less crazy to.

except amiam* was only JOKING and that moron chris didnt get it

 

[KittenKoder]

Nuclear subs are melting the ice cap and the glaciers???!!!!

No more of a narrow minded stretch than what you post. no less crazy to.

except amiam* was only JOKING and that moron chris didnt get it

That was just the cherry on top.