No more liberal emotional knee jerkie over mmgw

[calfoxwc]

It's a crock.

 

http://constitution.com/gonna-drown-myth-global-warming/

[calfoxwc]

[MLD Woody]

Who is the author exactly? What are his qualifications? What peer reviewed papers on the subject has he written?

 

Why exactly should I trust a bunch of numbers he threw out without any citation over what he is claiming NASA said?

 

 

I also enjoy how this excerpt ends with the normal anti-science, anti-academics BS that most other of your "experts" claim.

 

 

 

I get it, nothing will ever convince you otherwise. This scientific issue has been turned into a political one, and your party is controlling you like a puppet. It is really amazing how blindly people will believe things when you roll politics into it (on both sides, we just have examples on the right on this board). Damn the mountains of evidence, legitimate organizations, and actual experts that agree man is affecting the climate. You have an article from a clearly biased website with an excerpt from a clearly biased author that is clearly no expert. You have all of the proof you need!

 

It has to be genetic. Something in your brain. I can't even comprehend being that gullible. To just see everything in black and white, only taking in what you already believe to be true. There must be a paper on it somewhere.

[calfoxwc]

so....you agree with me, then.

 

got it.

[calfoxwc]

and this nonsense about a "mountain of evidence of mmgw" hysteria.

 

bogus. It has never once been posted on this board. But a lot of information

to the contrary has been posted for years.

 

And every single mmgw predictor of gloom by a certain date, has completely

and embarrassinly FAILED to occur.

 

The UN knows that mmgw is their only hope of redistribution of wealth globally,

and it's a powerful, but really stupid tool, as well - to accrue political power...

and a lot of money for entitlement spending...and other free stuff.

 

The fact that 'mmgw' became "climate change" across the board.... is proof that it

is not working. The leftwing fear mongering has lost it's impetus...

 

it's a crock. And, if all you can do is to attack the credentials of any author of any article that

shows it to be a crock..

 

just freaking once, try disputing the message content, instead of the messenger.

 

 

[StinkHole]

Stuart

 

I'm glad you found that.

 

An experiment I heard from someone:

 

Fill a glass part way with water.

Drop and ice cube or two in it.

Mark the level of the water.

Let the ice melt.

The water supposedly will not rise above your mark.

 

I never tried this experiment, but I assume as the ice melts, the initial displacement of the water by the ice is now being taken up by water, which is more dense than ice and has way less volume. That is why the level wont rise.

[gftChris]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html

 

This might help.

 

The basic premise is that your 'ice cubes in a glass of water' experiment holds perfectly well for water and ice of the same density, but sea water is salty, and thus has a higher density. So if you do the same experiment but put the appropriate level of salt in your water before adding the ice, the fresh water from the melting ice lowers the overall density of the water, and then you have the same mass spread over a larger volume - water level rising.

 

Give it a try, let us know what happens.

[jbluhm86]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html

 

This might help.

 

The basic premise is that your 'ice cubes in a glass of water' experiment holds perfectly well for water and ice of the same density, but sea water is salty, and thus has a higher density. So if you do the same experiment but put the appropriate level of salt in your water before adding the ice, the fresh water from the melting ice lowers the overall density of the water, and then you have the same mass spread over a larger volume - water level rising.

 

Give it a try, let us know what happens.

[One Post]

Lmao!

[Clevfan4life]

So cal, because ever proclamation that the world is going to end has never come to fruition, obviously.....am i now able to dismiss your religion as a bunch of quacks and hacks?

 

 

Yes i think i will

[calfoxwc]

I don't have a religion, I'm just a Christain, and you are just an asshole.

 

Did I make that plain enough for ya?

[calfoxwc]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/

 

Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong
“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog.

Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

Climate scientists have been baffled by the 17-year pause in global warming. At least eight explanations have been offered to explain the lapse in warming, including declining solar activity and natural climate cycles.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz4AF7LgKBU

[calfoxwc]

https://youtu.be/vvObfrs3qoE

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

 

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

• Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
• Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz4AF8tvuLg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[calfoxwc]

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1400/20130416/nasa-duping-washington-regards-global-warming.htm

 

Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists, the team acknowledges in their report that "climate science is not one of our data technical specialties," but that, nonetheless, given their experience in their separate fields of physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology and others, they felt the need to speak out.

Specifically, the report responds to what the group feels is unfounded pulpit pounding by certain NASA bureaus regarding a false damnation of global warming that is seen strictly the result of human sin in the form of carbon dioxide emissions.

"Many of us felt these alarming and premature predictions of a climate disaster with so little empirical data to support these claims, would eventually damage NASA's reputation for excellent and objective science and engineering achievement," the report states.

First of all, the group states, the argument over whether or not human-induced carbons are at fault for the rise the global rise in temperatures is not "settled," despite what James Hansen or others of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies may say. To support this statement, the report cited several groups all with varying opinions on the subject, including the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, Hansen himself, Richard Alley of Penn State, Rchard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Roger A. Pielke Sr. of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

[MLD Woody]

"I am going weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy useless statements"

 

*later that run on sentence*

 

"freeze and starve poor people to death"

 

 

 

Do you not see the irony there?

[calfoxwc]

"Many of us felt these alarming and premature predictions of a climate disaster with so little empirical data to support these claims, would eventually damage NASA's reputation for excellent and objective science and engineering achievement," the report states. "

*****************************

 

"mountains of data" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

<iframe width="793" height="442" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MZxec2N1KhY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Clevfan4life]

I don't have a religion, I'm just a Christain, and you are just an asshole.

 

Did I make that plain enough for ya?

Be nice now

[gftChris]

just freaking once, try disputing the message content, instead of the messenger.

 

 

So, I did. And rather than actually try to talk about that, you posted a bunch of unrelated stuff in another 'throw as much shit at the wall as I can' session. You get annoyed when people don't engage the point you're trying to make - fairly - yet when I do, you change the subject. What's with that?

[LogicIsForSquares]

Cal, when you machine gun out Google links by the dozen, it doesn't prove anything. Someone could just as easily Google the counter point to that and machine gun a thread with post after post of Google links. No one is going to sit and read all of that. It ends up just being a wall of nonsense.

 

I only mention this because it is unbearable. Even on a subject that I would agree with you on.

[StinkHole]

Stuart

 

Put that in a freezer and it explodes.

[calfoxwc]

I understand. The real point is, the arrogance of believe there isn't a flip side to this issue.

 

Always the "debate is over", "virtually all scientists agree", "mountains of evidence"...

 

I figure the flip side needs to keep being shown. Without understanding both sides, the libs

who are all in on mmgw run amok, and refuse to have a legit discussion on the issue.

[gftChris]

Stuart

 

Put that in a freezer and it explodes.

That's alcoholic, no problems.

[calfoxwc]

So, I did. And rather than actually try to talk about that, you posted a bunch of unrelated stuff in another 'throw as much shit at the wall as I can' session. You get annoyed when people don't engage the point you're trying to make - fairly - yet when I do, you change the subject. What's with that? Chris

*****************************************

Yes, you did. I was talking to woody, regarding his "mountain of evidence" bs.

He obviously is the one who dissed the messenger.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality

[gftChris]

I understand. The real point is, the arrogance of believe there isn't a flip side to this issue.

 

Always the "debate is over", "virtually all scientists agree", "mountains of evidence"...

 

I figure the flip side needs to keep being shown. Without understanding both sides, the libs

who are all in on mmgw run amok, and refuse to have a legit discussion on the issue.

Question for you. You see an article, like in the OP, and you kinda get suckered in a bit - it makes sense, after all, you can think about it intuitively, and come to that same conclusion; but then, someone - yes me in this case but could be anyone or anything - points out the flaw in the logic; do you ask yourself why this gets posted? It's quite easy in cases like this to disprove the logic, yet nobody at constitution.com has bothered to double check what is being written. Indeed, nobody at the publisher's where that book is being distributed bothers to double check it.

 

Next time you read something like that, are you going to pause and think 'well hang on, surely something that simple must have been thought of by now?' and check out what's up?

 

There are lots of variables at work here, and this is a massively complex issue, scientifically. Some the world's smartest people are working on it. You don't think someone would have thought about the displacement question?

[StinkHole]

So cal, because ever proclamation that the world is going to end has never come to fruition, obviously.....am i now able to dismiss your religion as a bunch of quacks and hacks?

Stuart

 

The irony here is that your religion and its followers are being dismissed as a bunch of hacks and quacks.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304510004575186343555831322

 

The religion of environmentalism.

 

• There is a holy day—Earth Day.

 

• There are food taboos. Instead of eating fish on Friday, or avoiding pork, Greens now eat organic foods and many are moving towards eating only locally grown foods.

 

• There is no prayer, but there are self-sacrificing rituals that are not particularly useful, such as recycling. Recycling paper to save trees, for example, makes no sense since the effect will be to reduce the number of trees planted in the long run.

 

• Belief systems are embraced with no logical basis. For example, environmentalists almost universally believe in the dangers of global warming but also reject the best solution to the problem, which is nuclear power. These two beliefs co-exist based on faith, not reason.

 

• There are no temples, but there are sacred structures. As I walk around the Emory campus, I am continually confronted with recycling bins, and instead of one trash can I am faced with several for different sorts of trash. Universities are centers of the environmental religion, and such structures are increasingly common. While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.

 

• Environmentalism is a proselytizing religion. Skeptics are not merely people unconvinced by the evidence: They are treated as evil sinners. I probably would not write this article if I did not have tenure.

[calfoxwc]

There are lots of variables at work here, and this is a massively complex issue, scientifically. Some the world's smartest people are working on it. You don't think someone would have thought about the displacement question? Chris

************************************************

yes, of course. I'm trying to show the flip side of the issue. You want me to cover all the variables?

 

That would be endless copy and pastes. Ya really want to go there? Now, I'm a very intelligent guy. Really, very.

But I am probably "not smarter than a fifth grader", and certainly not one of the world's smartest people. then again,

I'm talking to you guys on the board, and seems to be, you're not, either. Libs never post the flip side, they just

argue for mmgw. To be honest, you have to discuss both sides, and generally, mmgw hate that.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_water

 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanfreeze.html

 

Ocean water freezes just like freshwater, but at lower temperatures. Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit but seawater freezes at about 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit, because of the salt in it. When seawater freezes, however, the ice contains very little salt because only the water part freezes. It can be melted down to use as drinking water.

[calfoxwc]

therefore, there is 3.6 degrees difference in the freezing point of seawater and fresh water.

 

I wasn't done yet, was on the phone and hit the save changes button to go back and refer

to the op.

 

When icebergs melt, it's freshwater that it melts into. Those rascally icebergs are freshwater.

So, regardless of the density biz of

salt water, the fresh water calc still holds true, at least as far as a simple conversation.

 

The objection about salt water being different.....doesn't fly as a valid objection to the article.

[gftChris]

Not sure why I expected a straight answer :/

 

Nothing you posted to disagrees with what I posted - in fact it says the same thing. I'm not sure what your point here is?

[Clevfan4life]

Inb4 cals baseless gotcha

[calfoxwc]

so, having said that, water in pipes can freeze in the winter, and expand... and bust your pipes.

 

Therefore, fresh water in those rascally icebergs, will melt... and be less in volume.

 

It actually diminishes in volume when melted. Take a cup of water, with an icecube in it, full to the brim,

and let it melt.

 

It won't overflow.

 

Here, http://smithplanet.com/stuff/iceandwater.htm

 

melting ice and its effect on water levels

... or a fun exploration of volume, mass, density, floatation, global warming, and how to float in a swimming pool.

by Jared Smith

Principles

Archimedes' Principles:

Any floating object displaces a volume of water equal in weight to the object's MASS.

Any submerged object displaces a volume of water equal to the object's VOLUME.

Formula

Mass / Density = Volume

Melting ice cube

Glass of water with ice cube.If you place water and an ice cube in a cup so that the cup is entirely full to the brim, what happens to the level of water as the ice melts? Does it rise (overflow the cup), stay the same, or lower?

The ice cube is floating, so based on Archimedes' Principle 1 above, we know that the volume of water being displaced (moved out of the way) is equal in mass (weight) to the mass of the ice cube. So, if the ice cube has a mass of 10 grams, then the mass of the water it has displaced will be 10 grams.

A tower of Jenga blocks.We know the density (or compactness, weight per unit) of the ice cube is less than that of the liquid water, otherwise it wouldn't be floating. Water is one of the very few solids that is less dense than when in its liquid form. If you take a one pound bottle of water and freeze it, it will still weigh one pound, but the molecules will have spread apart a bit and it will be less dense and take up more volume or space. This is why water bottles expand in the freezer. It's similar to a Jenga tower. When you start playing it contains a fixed number of blocks, but as you pull out blocks and place them on top, the tower becomes bigger, yet it still has the same mass/weight and number of blocks.

Fresh, liquid water has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter (1g = 1cm^3, every cubic centimeter liquid water will weigh 1 gram). By the formula above (Mass / Density = Volume) and basic logic, we know that 10 grams of liquid water would take up 10 cubic cm of volume (10g / 1g/cm^3 = 10cm^3).

So let's say that our 10 gram ice cube has a density of only .92 grams per cubit centimeter. By the formula above, 10 grams of mass that has a density of .92 grams per cubic centimeter will take up about 10.9 cubic centimeters of space (10g / .92g/cm^3 = 10.9cm^3). Again, the volume of 10 grams of frozen water is more than the volume of 10 grams of its liquid counterpart.

The floating ice cube has a mass of 10 grams, so based on Archimedes' Principle 1, it is displacing 10 grams of water (which has 10cm^3 of volume). You can't squeeze a 10.9cm^3 ice cube into a 10cm^3 space, so the rest of the ice cube (about 9% of it) will be floating above the water line.

So what happens when the ice cube melts? The ice shrinks (decreases volume) and becomes more dense. The ice density will increase from .92g/cm^3 to that of liquid water (1g/cm^3). Note that the weight will not (and cannot) change. The mass just becomes more dense and smaller - similar to putting blocks back into their original positions in our Jenga tower. We know the ice cube weighed 10 grams initially, and we know it's density (1g/cm^3), so let's apply the formula to determine how much volume the melted ice cube takes. The answer is 10 cubic centimeters (10g / 1g/cm^3 = 10cm^3), which is exactly the same volume as the water that was initially displaced by the ice cube.

In short, the water level will not change as the ice cube melts

Other oddities

Anchors away

Using this same logic, there are some fun analogies. Consider an aluminum boat in a swimming pool. If you put a 5 gallon bucket full of 100 pounds of lead or some other metal into the boat, the boat will get lower in the water and the additionally displaced water in the pool will cause the pool level to rise. And based on Archimedes' Principle 1 for floating objects, it would rise by the volume of water equal in weight to the 100 pound lead bucket. Water weighs 8.3 pounds per gallon, so the boat will displace an additional 12 gallons of water (12 gallons * 8.3 pounds per gallon = 100 pounds).

What would happen if you throw the bucket of lead overboard into the pool? Will the pool level increase, decrease, or stay the same?

When we toss the bucket of lead overboard, the pool level goes down 12 gallons (the volume of water no longer displaced by the weight in the boat). But when it enters the water, it will be submerged, so we now need to apply Archimedes' Principle 2 for submerged objects (it will displace a volume of water equal to the object's volume). The water level will then go up by the volume of the lead bucket, which is 5 gallons. So, the net difference is that the pool level will go down by 7 gallons, even though the bucket is still technically in the pool.

Just remember that mass and density don't matter for submerged objects. Volume is everything. Consider dropping a brick of clay and a brick of gold into a bucket. The gold has more mass and is more dense than the clay, yet if both bricks are the same size, both will displace the same amount of water.

A sinking ship

A fat guy in a small boat.Similarly, if your aluminum boat weighed 100 pounds, it would displace 100 pounds of water (12 gallons) when floating. But if the boat springs a leak and sinks, the pool level would decrease 12 gallons minus the volume of the aluminum in the boat. The boat's volume (amount of space comprised of aluminum metal) would be much less than 12 gallons. In fact, based on the density of aluminum (.1 pounds/in^3), we can determine using our formula that the volume of our 100 pound boat will be about 1000 cubic inches (100/.1 = 1000). There are 231 cubic inches per gallon, so the boat is comprised of about 4.3 gallons of aluminum (1000/231 = 4.3) and thus displaces 4.3 gallons of water when submerged, much less than the 12 gallons that same aluminum displaced when floating. In conclusion, when our boat sinks, the pool level goes down by 7.7 gallons.

Experiment

As an experiment, fill a sink with 5 or 6 inches of water and note the water level. Next set a heavy glass down into the sink while balancing it right side up (i.e., so it doesn't tip over and fill with water). The water level will notably rise to make room for the empty glass and you'll note that it's difficult to get the glass to sink while also it is upright. The heavy glass displaces a lot of water because of the heavy mass of the glass (Archimedes' Principle 1), yet it still floats because of it's low density (don't forget about all the air inside the glass). The glass will feel lighter to you because of the buoyancy principle (the force of the displaced water pushing up against the weight of the object displacing it). It will float perfectly in the water when the weight of the glass equals the weight of the water it is displacing.

Now lay the glass down sideways and let it submerge in the sink. The water level will be only barely higher than the original level. It now displaces very little water because the glass has a very low volume (Archimedes' Principle 2).

A marble in ice

Back to our original scenario, what if the ice cube had a small marble embedded inside of it? When the ice melts, would the water level increase, decrease, or stay the same?

Let's say we have the same ice cube as before (10g with a density of .92g/cm^3 and volume of 10.9cm^3) and a 1 gram marble with a density of 2g/cm^3. Using the formula above, we know the marble has to have a volume of .5 cubic centimeters (1g / 2g/cm^3 = .5cm^3). Obviously the marble would just sink if we tossed it in the glass because its density (2g/cm^3) is higher than water's (1g/cm^3). And we know when submerged it would displace .5cm^3 of water (Archimedes' Principle 2). But when embedded in the ice cube, what happens?

Will it float?

First, we need to determine whether the ice cube will sink or float now that it has the marble in it. To do this, we need to figure out the combined density of the ice cube AND marble. We know that the ice cube has a mass of 10 grams and the marble has a mass of 1 gram, for a combined mass of 11 grams. We also know that the ice cube has a volume of 10.9cm^3 and the marble has a volume of .5cm^3, for a combined volume of 11.4cm^3. Using the formula, we can determine that the combined density is .965g/cm^3 (11g / Density = 11.4cm^3, or 11/11.4 = .965). In other words, the small marble obviously increases the combined density, but it's still less than the density of water, so the thing will definitely float!

Experiment

A baby floating in a swimming pool.

NOT the author

I have an interesting talent of being able to float on water. When I jump into a pool, I sink like a rock. I'm a pretty big guy (200+ pounds) of medium build. There's nothing particular about my body that would cause it to float. But if I lie on my back, extend my arms and legs, take a deep breath, puff out my chest, and flex all my muscles, I can float almost indefinitely without hardly moving a muscle. And you probably can too.

"How?", you ask. By making my volume larger, I decrease my density to just below that of the water. My mass doesn't change when I'm at the pool (heaven knows I wish it did). When you consider our formula, if my mass is fixed and I increase my body volume, by definition my density must decrease. Most anyone can float if they make themselves just a bit bigger, but not any heavier. Try it next time you go swimming.

Losing our marbles

As noted above, the ice cube + marble has a mass of 11 grams, so it will initially displace 11 grams or 11cm^3 of water. We've already figured out from above that the water from the melted ice cube will take up 10cm^3. Once the ice cube has melted, the marble will submerge, and based on Archimedes' Principle 2 will displace .5cm^3 (the marble's volume) of water. The combined volume taken by the melted ice and submerged marble is 10.5cm^3, which is less than the 11cm^3 initially displaced by them.

The water level will lower by .5cm^3 when the ice melts.

Say what?!?

At first this seems illogical until you realize that the only influence of the ice cube on the water level is that it happens to float the marble. The ice cube itself neither increases nor decreases the water level, but with the heavier marble inside, the amount of water displaced by that ice cube is greater at the beginning (just like your lead bucket inside the boat). Once the marble is no longer floating, only its volume matters (just like tossing the lead bucket overboard or sinking the boat).

Bottom's up

What if the marble and ice cube were instead submerged? A heavier/bigger marble would cause it to sink once the combined ice cube/marble density became greater than the water's. But let's say we used the same marble embedded in the same ice cube as before, but used a magnet to force it to the bottom of the cup. When it melts, how much will the water level decrease? Will it decrease by more, less, or the same volume as when floating?

It's actually a very easy question to answer. Once submerged, we only need to look at volume. The marble takes .5cm^3 and the frozen ice cube takes 10.9cm^3 for a combined 11.4cm^3. Once melted, the ice cube's water takes up only 10cm^3 and the marble still (obviously) takes up .5cm^3, so the water level will decrease by .9cm^3 (11.4cm^3 - 10.5cm^3 = .9cm^3). The water level will decrease almost twice as much as it did for the floating ice cube + marble.

Salt water

From above, we know that when an ice cube melts in fresh water, the water level stays the same. What if we used salt water instead of fresh water? Would the water levels change as a fresh water ice cube melts in it?

Let's assume the same ice cube as our first scenario (mass of 10 grams and volume of 10.9cm^3) and very salty water with a density of 1.05g/cm^3. Archimedes' Principle 1 applies, so we know the ice cube will displace a volume of salt water that weighs 10 grams. Using the formula we determine that 10 grams of salt water with density of 1.05g/cm^3 will have a volume of about 9.5cm^3 (10g/1.05g/cm^3 = 9.52cm^3). As before, you can't fit a 10.9cm^3 ice cube in a 9.5cm^3 space, so 1.4cm^3 (about 13%) of the ice cube will float above the surface. It makes sense that the ice cube would float higher in salt water because of the salt water's higher density.

Once melted to fresh water, the ice cube will take the same volume as before (10cm^3), but it was dispersing only 9.5cm^3 of water space when floating, so the water level will rise to account for the additional .5cm^3. This is a fairly small amount (only about 5% of the volume of the melted water), but it's notable.

NOTE: This does not account for the fact that the overall density of the water in the cup will decrease a small amount as the fresh water mixes in with it. The effect of this on things is rather miniscule.

Rising seas

A globe with a sphere representing the Earth's total water.What happens when you apply this to oceans and ice sheets? There's an estimated 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of ocean water. If put into a single cube, this water would be 1090 kilometers (675 miles) on each side and be 1090 kilometers high. It would fill a bath tub the size of Texas that is 30 miles tall! That's a lot of water, though when you consider that the volume of Earth is just over 1 trillion cubic kilometers, ocean water makes up about .1% of Earth's volume (though incredible it covers 70% of it's surface, which shows how shallow the ocean really is)!

A photo of an ice berg.There's an estimated 660,000 cubic kilometers of floating sea ice. If put into one block, it would be 87km (54 miles) on each side (about the footprint of the state of Delaware) and 87km high.

If all of that ice were to melt, what impact would it have on the ocean levels? If both the ice and the sea water were both fresh water (or both salt water), it would have no impact at all (excluding all other factors, such as water temperature). But because of the difference in salinity (density) of the sea water and the ice, the increase in volume would be about 2.6% of the volume of the melted ice water, which when added to the volume of the oceans, would raise the ocean level only about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches). Details here.

Note that this only accounts for floating sea ice. The total amount of non-floating Arctic and Antarctic ice is about 50 times higher, and because this is not currently floating (and displacing sea water), if it were all to melt the sea levels would rise significantly.

Hopefully this has been a useful and thought-provoking presentation. Thank you to Doug who got me interested in this topic and inspired me to author this. I welcome any comments or corrections.