Originally Posted by spunkmaster (Post 11779387)

Ice is expanded water and will only displace it's weight in the water
so when ice melts in water the total volume of water will be less not more!

As far as areas going under water it's more a result of the land sinking
not the water level rising.

There are some areas where the land is actually rising above sea level
like Northern Europe and Antarctica.

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779463)

No I am saying, Ice is fucking Ice and when it melts it becomes Water, so when you add more water to water, the volume of that water increases...

Jesus fucking christ did you two go to the same fucking school???

Originally Posted by spunkmaster (Post 11779387)

Ice is expanded water and will only displace it's weight in the water
so when ice melts in water the total volume of water will be less not more!

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11779473)

Too much coffee you still dont get it.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779450)

water expands when it freezes. when a piece of ice is floating the a cup and melts, the result would be a very slight decrease in the level of water in the cup assuming a significant portion was not floating above the ice (determined by its own density).

what genius boy is trying to say in his own cute, but sadly pathetic and morbidly entertaining way, is that ice floating in the sea and then melting does not raise sea overall levels. this is true for two reasons. 1) fresh water is less dense than salt water 2) ice is less dense than water

what his thick head can't seem to grasp is that no one argues thats the case (not talking about rare exceptions of extremists). the melting ice, ice shelves breaking apart etc are generally seen as warning signs that the polar ice caps might begin melting at an accellerated pace as well.. which would then result in an overall increase in sea levels as that water ends up in the sea.

hope this brings the class up to speed!

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779463)

No I am saying, Ice is fucking Ice and when it melts it becomes Water, so when you add more water to water, the volume of that water increases...

Jesus fucking christ did you two go to the same fucking school???

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779463)

No I am saying, Ice is fucking Ice and when it melts it becomes Water, so when you add more water to water, the volume of that water increases...

Jesus fucking christ did you two go to the same fucking school???

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779491)

This is basically 100% wrong and goes against hundreds of years of science.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11779498)

So the movie that triggered all these recent gfy debates doesnt show a big graphic of rising sea levels due to ice shelves breaking off, and then saying the world trade center memorial will be under water?

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779500)

your comments assume ice is not in the water when it melts... his assume ice is floating in the water when it melts.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11779504)

So you are saying an icecube when melted takes up more space than in its frozen form?

Originally Posted by spunkmaster (Post 11779502)

I wasn't talking about volume I was answering this question!

"So lets make this simple. A glass filled to the top with ice melts, does it overflow the glass?
"

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11779498)

So the movie that triggered all these recent gfy debates doesnt show a big graphic of rising sea levels due to ice shelves breaking off, and then saying the world trade center memorial will be under water?

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779519)

How the fuck would i know? I dont watch that shit. I think Al Gore is an idiot. Al Gore is to the environment what Al Sharpton is to racism. They need a boogeyman or they become irrelevant.

Making fun of you and your backwards arguments and commentary has nothing to do with supporting Al Gore or watching his movie

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779549)

Tell ya what, take a glass of water put it on the table, fill it up to the rim, call that the ocean. Take 3 ice cubes, call them them Iceland, put them in the water, call the water on the table Manhattan.

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779538)

well you sure said volume.

Originally Posted by spunkmaster (Post 11779564)

You right it should have been level as the water volume will actually
increase after the ice melts and it's volume will be added to the water
volume.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779563)

I'm sorry man, but you are wrong as well. It's not about the ice adding more volume. The overall mass is a constant.

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779526)

No, I assume the ice is in the water. Just because the "sea level" in the glass goes down, does not mean the volume is not going up. The area that the Ice is displacing in the water is not part of the water's volume, that's why it's called displaced, when the ice melts, the ice loses part of it's volume displaces less, and the water gains volume.

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779583)

I wasn't talking about volume, god I give up. Since you haven't seen the movie, I'll give you the run down.

There is ice sitting ON TOP of iceland, not in the water. That ice that is not in the water is doing something that some other ice did just before it all slid into the ocean. According to Al Gore, when that Ice that is not yet in the water, slides off of Iceland and into the ocean, it will displace so much of the ocean that it will raise the sea level.

Has nothing to do with the volume of water.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779586)

now you are playing sematics... obviously the water gains volume as more water is added to it as a result of the melting ice. but the argument is whether or not the overall level of the water would rise as a result of the melting ice. the answer is "no".

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779586)

now you are playing sematics... obviously the water gains volume as more water is added to it as a result of the melting ice. but the argument is whether or not the overall level of the water would rise as a result of the melting ice. the answer is "no".

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779583)

There is ice sitting ON TOP of iceland, not in the water. That ice that is not in the water is doing something that some other ice did just before it all slid into the ocean. According to Al Gore, when that Ice that is not yet in the water, slides off of Iceland and into the ocean, it will displace so much of the ocean that it will raise the sea level.

Has nothing to do with the volume of water.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779605)

Yes it would rise. Water expands when heated.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779605)

Yes it would rise. Water expands when heated.

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779613)

It expands more when it is frozen, however.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779611)

dude... seriously. stop.

no water is being heated in the context of the 342 different conversations happening here.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779653)

Yes it does. Which is fine and dandy for the 1% of the Earth that is ice. The other 99% is water, which when heated will expand.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779661)

You said that ice melting would have no effect on the sea level. Usually to melt ice, you have to heat it.

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11779688)

The only concern of the melting ice that is already in the water is the addition of too much fresh water to the delicate balance between fresh and salt water that create the North Atlantic Current. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rising sea level.

The sea level problem is the ice that sits on top of Iceland. That ice is starting to do something very similar to another body of land based ice that slid into the ocean. Water is melting down and thru, and running underneath the ice. If it breaks off and goes into the ocean, it will rise the sea level.

Stickyretards argument is combining the two into one, which they are not. But, what do you expect from a guy who obviously failed Science & Geology.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779701)

what the fuck... are you and sticky having some sort of tag team ignorance showdown?


"heated" in the context of this discussion means "33 degrees which melts some ice.. somewhere" not "oh my fucking god! the oceans are boiling and we're all going to die"

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779729)

Ignorance is believing that melting ice would not require any rise in temperature on the planet. Or that the rise in temperature would only be in regards to the part of the planet that houses the icecaps.

If ice melts, it means the temperature of our planet has risen. This means that all the water on the planet rises in temperature (even if it's small). That rise will expand the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise. I don't see how this is hard to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779789)

dude... seriously... you should stop.

melting ice obviously requires a temperature above freezing. thats hardly the same thing as making a wrong argument that "heated sea water" can eventually increase in volume to offset the difference between the density of fresh water ice and density of sea water to result in a positive net change in sea levels.

fresh water is at its maximum density at just above freezing anyway, i believe. salt water depends on salinity

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11779789)

dude... seriously... you should stop.

melting ice obviously requires a temperature above freezing. thats hardly the same thing as making a wrong argument that "heated sea water" can eventually increase in volume to offset the difference between the density of fresh water ice and density of sea water to result in a positive net change in sea levels.

fresh water is at its maximum density at just above freezing anyway, i believe. salt water depends on salinity

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 11779949)

It's called thermal expansion. It's agreed upon by virtually every major scientist in the world. When the planet increases in temperature, water expands, the sea levels rise.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11779897)

OK OK!! NOW put it in perspective... What is the average CLAIMED temperature increase recorded over the last 100 years??? less than 1 degree F.

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11780057)

what does that have to do with your remarks about "misplaced water" and polar bears?

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11780072)

Again you need to watch Als little movie.

http://movies.peekvid.com/s4055/

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11780057)

what does that have to do with your remarks about "misplaced water" and polar bears?

Originally Posted by aico (Post 11780129)

Has absolutely nothing to do with it. Just some less intelligent person (and that's putting it mildly) who can't seem to see the movies different points, so he's putting them all together as if they are one. I mean come on, with a mininum of 12 years of schooling and he doesn't know that there is land under the ice in Antartica, you can't really expect him to grasp much of anything from a 2 hour movie.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 11780165)

No I believe I was trying to point out that the ice shelves have no land under them. You think I was asking questions cause I didnt know the answers already? lol. I asked them to see what all you global environment sheep would respond. So do the ice sheets in the arctic and antarctic work like a normal glacier that expands and extracts during the season? You think if an ice shelf expands far enough from the land base into the ocean that it might split away under its own weight?

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 11780038)

congrats on your google skills. i know what thermal expansion is... oddly and not to my suprise, you were supposedly smart enough to look that up with google.. and yet apparently not smart enough to do the very obvious and look up a table to compare water density at varying temperatures and the density of fresh water ice/sea water to see how retarded your argument is... that argument being that the density of fresh water ice and density of sea water are both less than "heated" (your word) sea water, to explain that melting ice will actually cause sea water levels to rise using the obviously flawed reasoning that to be "melted" it must be "heated".