Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 139865 2015-07-13 02:48:00 Can I have a $ each way please? B.M. (505) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1404676 2015-07-28 02:39:00 Actually, 0 degrees is damn close to melting point. Regardless, if you actually understood the issue you're talking about, you'd realise that there are actually two issues here.

1: The damage done to habitats if the North Pole melts. As well as the potential danger of having a bunch of icebergs floating around.
2: The second is that, for ice currently on land, if the temperature warms (Greenland is most at risk here, although Antarctica is a longer term risk, with more severe potential consequences), large chunks of land ice could break off, forming icebergs.

To help you understand point two, let's revisit your example, using ice cubes. Put some ice cubes in a glass, and fill it to the brim with water. Wait for the ice cubes to melt. That's the sea ice melting. Now, however, the temperature has warmed enough for large chunks of land ice to break away into floating icebergs. To demonstrate the effects of this, now add a several ice cubes into the glass. Yes, it will overflow. That is the rising sea level that will occur if the temperature warms enough for land ice to break up into chunks and turn into icebergs.
Nick G (16709)
1404677 2015-07-28 02:41:00 en.wikipedia.org

This link may help you to understand a little more about the issue B.M.
Nick G (16709)
1404678 2015-07-28 03:24:00 en.wikipedia.org

This link may help you to understand a little more about the issue B.M.

:lol: Might pay to read it yourself. :lol:

Ice shelves
Antarctic ice shelves, 1998

About 75% of the coastline of Antarctica is ice shelves. The utmost parts consist of floating ice until the grounding line of land based glaciers is reached, which is determined through affords such as Operation IceBridge. Ice shelves lose mass through iceberg breakup (calving), or basal melting (at the foot of the glacier, when warm ocean water impacts), and this can affect ice sheet stability when the land based glaciers start to retreat; however, melting or breakup of floating shelf ice does not directly affect global sea levels.[16]
B.M. (505)
1404679 2015-07-28 04:25:00 So you don't understand the difference between ice shelves (floating) and ice sheets (ice presently above sea level AND the shelves around the edges)?

en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org
Doesn't surprise me, you really are stupid. :lol:
KarameaDave (15222)
1404680 2015-07-28 04:39:00 :lol: Might pay to read it yourself. :lol:



I did. You'll note in post #121 I quite clearly specify that we're talking about if land ice (ice sheets) melt. The warming temperatures and warmer ocean currents will initially cause sea ice (ice shelves) to melt/break into icebergs (which, initially, could actually result in a short term cooling in ocean temperatures), but in the longer term, Antarctica has very large quantities of land ice, which would definitely contribute to a raise in the sea level.

Not quite sure what you don't understand there, I think it's pretty clear and obvious.
Nick G (16709)
1404681 2015-07-28 04:52:00 What is perfectly clear is that not one of the predicted outcomes over the past 20 or 30 years has shown any sign of happening. CliveM (6007)
1404682 2015-07-28 05:07:00 So you don't understand the difference between ice shelves (floating) and ice sheets (ice presently above sea level AND the shelves around the edges)?

. wikipedia . org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet" target="_blank">en . wikipedia . org
. wikipedia . org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet" target="_blank">en . wikipedia . org

. wikipedia . org/wiki/Ice_shelf" target="_blank">en . wikipedia . org
Doesn't surprise me, you really are stupid . :lol:

Ahhhh riveting stuff Dave, riveting stuff . :lol:

But what is this?

The icing of Antarctica began with ice-rafting from middle Eocene times about 45 . 5 million years ago[5] and escalated inland widely during the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago . CO2 levels were then about 760 ppm[6] and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm .

Did you witness this yourself Dave?

And are you telling me that we once had CO2 levels in the Thousands PPM without a Cow, Motor Car, Coal Powered power station or human to be found anywhere and the ice was escalating inland widely?



Hilarious, I think I’ll open the Bar . :lol:
B.M. (505)
1404683 2015-07-28 05:16:00 So, if you actually read the article, it says the declining CO2 levels appeared to be the reason for the icing escalating inland. In other words, a decrease in CO2 led to an increase in ice.

Following this, why are you trying to say that increasing CO2 levels wouldn't result in a decreasing level of ice?

Forgetting the absolute levels, look at the relationship between the two variables.
Nick G (16709)
1404684 2015-07-28 05:49:00 So, if you actually read the article, it says the declining CO2 levels appeared to be the reason for the icing escalating inland . In other words, a decrease in CO2 led to an increase in ice .

Following this, why are you trying to say that increasing CO2 levels wouldn't result in a decreasing level of ice?

Forgetting the absolute levels, look at the relationship between the two variables .

I can see comprehension isn’t one of your strengths Nick, if indeed you have any, so I’ll put my teeth in and explain .

What was said from your link was that with co2 levels down to 760ppm the ice escalated inland widely .

Well, today the co2 levels are down to 400ppm and now the ice is all melting!

Explain that . :confused:
B.M. (505)
1404685 2015-07-28 05:59:00 No, I comprehended perfectly well. When CO2 levels dropped, ice cover increased. Now CO2 levels are increasing, it would be logical that ice cover would decline.

I think you're the one who isn't quite understanding.
Nick G (16709)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25