Again, I hope you're joking.

There are two problems :

1 Sea water has salt in it. When it freezes the ice is pure water, which is less dense, leading to a percentage of the ice floating ABOVE the water (i believe 20%).

2 - There are chunks of ice which aren't on the water, but instead build off of land masses.

victor809 wrote:

Heater coils? I thought you used chem trails?

ZRX1200 wrote:

What are you saying in #1?

All ice is less dense than water. I don't recall the percentage, but the reason icebergs float is because it's ice and has nothing to do with the salt content.
Salt water is more dense (more buoyant) and the frozen (pure) water may float higher, but the salt and water ratios never change. The reason the water has a high salt content is partially due to the fact that some of the water froze. So when the water melts, the combination merely goes back to the original ratio.
We aren't creating or destroying matter (salt) here.

tailgater wrote:

What's the argument here?

Drafter is correct, in that the melting ice (assuming we mean icebergs only) won't have any impact on the ocean levels. Just as melting ice cubes have no effect on water level in a glass.
None.
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.

But if the global temps rise, it won't affect icebergs alone. Land based ice from polar regions and especially glaciers would add to the sea levels when they melt or fall into the ocean (often in the form of new icebergs).

Some say the ocean will also rise due to thermal expansion, but this is a tricky one since water will both expand and contract with a rise in temperature depending on how cold it is. Water above 4 degrees C will expand with rising temperatures, but water below this will actually contract with a rise in temperature. And the water in the arctic and the antarctic is almost always below this. So the "global warming" would have to exclude the polar regions if thermal expansion were to have a significant effect.

It's important to understand the facts as they exist in context.

tailgater wrote:

When saltwater freezes it generally excludes the salt. I'm not 100% sure of the process, but the icebergs which form are mostly pure water.

victor809 wrote:

When saltwater freezes it generally excludes the salt. I'm not 100% sure of the process, but the icebergs which form are mostly pure water.

Therefore you have denser saltwater with ice (already less dense than water) which is composed of fresh water (even less dense). This is why an iceberg will sit higher than a regular ice cube (and I believe it's about 20% exposure)

victor809 wrote:

See my statement above. There will be an increase in volume (due to the increased buoyancy of freshwater ice). It won't be the 20% of exposed ice (because the change in density as ice becomes water) but will be closer to the delta in density between salt water and fresh water.

victor809 wrote:

Yes, but when melted the net results are not altered. The water level won't rise, so none of this makes a difference.
The biggest influence will be land based chunks of ice falling into the ocean and/or melting.
And even if catastrophic, I won't be suddenly blessed with ocean front at the casa de tailgater.

tailgater wrote:

You do realize that the reasons icebergs float so "high" is due to their geometry, don't you?
The vast majority of the berg is below water.
Hence the term "that's only the tip of the iceberg".

The difference in density between pure water and ocean salt water is only about 2%, not 20%, so I don't know where you're going with your numbers.

tailgater wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sealevel-rise.html

Here... we're talking sufficient volume to raise the ocean levels by a few cm. (that is actually worse than it sounds)

victor809 wrote:

Ima gonna go ahead and call off the panic.

We're back to stage yellow people.

HockeyDad wrote:

The net effect will be virtually zero.
The numbers expressed in this article totally ignore thermal expansion/contraction.

The temperature of the sea water in the polar regions is below 4 degrees C.
The only way for the icebergs to melt would be a corresponding increase in temperature.
The water would therefore become more dense (more compact) with the rise in temp until it surpasses the 4 degree threshold (which it won't).

Half truths are dangerous, and it's articles like this that give further proof that there is an agenda driving the information.

tailgater wrote:

That's an interesting addition.

I'd be very curious to see how the calculations would work out on that. It would depend a LOT on the distribution of the additional heat.... ie, if we're looking at global increases in temp, then the areas of the ocean already warm would become much warmer. If we're looking at just a increased distribution of warmth, it may be that the only real increase in temperature would be near the poles.

An additional part of the calculation which you are neglecting would be that the melted ice would actually cool the oceans (this is something which I believe was suggested at one time to explain weather phenomena). So that would be working against the increased temperature.

Need some very sophisticated models to work that out.

victor809 wrote:

And yet we're told that the world is warming, the ice will melt, the oceans will rise, the world will end, and it's all man's fault.

All because we forgot to include a seemingly obvious variable...

tailgater wrote:

It's a good variable. But I don't think it's conclusive which direction it would drive the results. I doubt we have the necessary models to figure that variable with accuracy.

Still leaves land-based glaciers tho... either way the ocean levels will rise with an increase in temperature. The question becomes how much.

The funny part is I expected this article to drive discussion a whole different way. I was expecting people to jump on it as defense of the whole "natural warming/cooling" cycle thing.

victor809 wrote:

The funny part is I expected this article to drive discussion a whole different way. I was expecting people to jump on it as defense of the whole "natural warming/cooling" cycle thing.

victor809 wrote: