Climate, melting ice and sea level

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




by aerialcastor » 09/02/11, 21:37

From memory, an iceberg is 90% submerged.
Obviously it depends on the densities of water and ice.
The calculation is simple, it suffices to calculate the relative density is ρg / ρe
with g for ice and e for water.
Relative density will give the proportion of ice that is in the water.
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.
It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 09/02/11, 23:49

These dialogs on icebergs are to be put in the humor section !!
The effect is a pith compared to 70m of water from the oceans in ice on Greenland and the Antarctic with rocky mountains at more than 3000m above sea level, and which will certainly melt if we multiply by factors of 2 at 10 the concentration of CO2 in the air, an easy disaster by burning the fossil fuels accumulated in the earth for more than 600 million years by life which renews the oxygen in our atmosphere every 200000 years approximately by releasing in equal quantities for each molecule 02 a carbon atom C in the form of a carbon chain which accumulates very partially in the earth in fossil fuel !!

So we are on finding in the ground enough to burn all the oxygen in our atmosphere and have 20% of CO2 to suffocate us well before !!
The oxygen in our atmosphere, renewed every 200000 years, was produced during the whole period of 600 million years 600x1000 / 200 = 3000 times with as much carbon in living matter that has accumulated in the earth in a large number of various forms, including fossil fuels.
Continental drift limits by recycling this carbon via volcanoes and releasing CO2 !!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 09/02/11, 23:52

aerialcastor wrote:Relative density will give the proportion of ice that is in the water.


At the head it is 4% to check on wiki..after the density of sea water depends on its salinity and as the salinity therefore varies the buoyancy too ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 10/02/11, 00:24

Hey, hey ... puilleme, it's quickly said! In any case, we cannot be categorical.

Here the map of average surface temperatures:

Image
Source: wiki.

If we compare with what they were before on average in the tropical zone: we arrive at 37 ° C (maybe more ... unless the ancestors of our species, did not appear pile in the tropical zone), we see a difference of ~ 10 ° C less nowadays ... Admitting that all the ice of the poles melts, it will further decrease this temperature ... So, yes ... the warmer the water, the more it expands ... but in the meantime ... it will rather cool down again! In fact: currently this water is solid in the form of ice, so it cannot mix. By cons once melted ... What makes the area from 0 ° C to 4 ° C goes de facto increase by as much ...

In addition, we do not know very well what is going on deep down, but on earth, the temperature stabilizes below ~ 20m and it increases by 1 ° C every 30m approximately ... what would happen in sea? What about the total volume and mixes with the weighting of the temperatures that go with them?

In short, the forecast calculations should take into account everything ...
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 10/02/11, 00:57

@ Obamot:

Add salt in your glass and you increase the density of the liquid water: the ice cubes (of fresh water ...) will therefore float better and rise, unlike the stupid things that you spout out. (Think of the Dead Sea, ti fleets or ti flows? Didiou!)
But when they have melted (the ice cubes), salt or not, the level will be the same!

Archimedes' push, Elementary physics as you say!

I stop the fees, after a short explanation could not be more simple, you are unable either to understand what you just wrote, or to admit your wrong, it's just anything.
Worse still, as I'm not very smart, I will let the readers judge.
Ah well no, they will not be able since Obamot corrects his posts a posteriori.

@Dedeleco

Not even a puilleme .... nothing!

Don't be shy, if you want to synthesize the stuff in the Humor section, I don't see any inconvenience!
Last edited by highfly-addict the 10 / 02 / 11, 19: 39, 1 edited once.
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET
"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 10/02/11, 08:26

Ah, Ah, Ah ... Obamot is a big draw on this one, right !? : Cheesy:

... at the same time you just demonstrated that the increase in sea level due to the melting of the ice ... it would be peanut. Thanks, don't clap. : Cheesy:

I hope that after this brilliant archimedic demonstration (lol) we will examine with tweezers, this unequivocal hypothesis of the increase in sea level due to the melting of the ice to focus more on that of thermal expansion ... Although ... To demonstrate how much ... it will be cake to be weighed ... Would there not be effects of temperature change which cancel out if we analyze the causes? : Mrgreen:

Peanut, really?
2,5% difference in density tells us Wikipedia. This is not Dedelco's opinion, however, that does not prevent me from respecting his opinion without trying to make him pass for a turkey. : Cheesy:

Let's go back, which says melting ice, says:
- drop in sea temperature;
- modification of the salinity of the water;
- increase in the phenomenon of the “water paradox”.

So if the reasoning is correct, when fresh water dissolves in sea water, it should decrease the density of salt water by as much (first effect of volume reduction) and this phenomenon should reduce the temperature water and therefore reduce its thermal expansion! (Second effect of volume reduction, which is cumulative to the first) and increase in the temperature zone between 0 ° and 4 ° C, which has the effect of "contracting the water" (third effect of decrease in volume, which would be combined with the other two). Am i good?

Diwouar Highflyaddict, the temperature of the water in your glass, how much was it?

Image -> []
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 10/02/11, 13:37

Among the armada of detail effects, following the melting of the ice, we forget the rebound of the continents rid of their km of ice, very important, more than m per year !!
Also, the movements of rising and falling of the continents by drift of the continents, very important in certain places (m per millennia) associated with full of earthquakes, and which can change the level of the seas, etc.
It is necessary to read the articles on the measurement of the sea level (references in the links which I put) to learn these various effects rather numerous more important than the dilation and change of density.

If we exceed happily the doubling of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (almost certain, because the peak of fuels is imaginary)), it is certain that the warming will become inexorable, whatever the scientists are discussing, (even C Allègre) and the sea level will rise without being able to stop it, as 15000 years ago, without any human action, because the current climate is unstable and like an unstable seesaw.
This is clearly visible on this 3 million year curve of temperatures and sea levels, with this instability increases very strongly and we are in the middle of this maximum instability in hot periods (probably due to the closure of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean junction, ascent of the Hymalaya, barring the land from the Alps to China, and even Alaska, etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Image


Read all these very informative links:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_du_climat
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimageschichte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotte_de_glace
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciation
0 x
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7




by highfly-addict » 10/02/11, 14:12

Well, I suspected it, now I have proof (available on request to whoever wants), Mossieur Ob edits his messages after the fact by removing / reworking the "awkward" passages! Says a lot about the character's intellectual honesty, doesn't it?

Obamot wrote:Ah, Ah, Ah ... Obamot is a big draw on this one, right !? : Cheesy:


You are the one writing it. Not me. But now that you say it ...

... at the same time you just demonstrated that the increase in sea level due to the melting of the ice ... it would be peanut. Thanks, don't clap. : Cheesy:


For floating ice (ice floes and icebergs), yes. CQFD.


Let's go back, which says melting ice, says:
- drop in sea temperature;
- modification of the salinity of the water;
- increase in the phenomenon of the “water paradox”.

So if the reasoning is correct, when fresh water dissolves in sea water, it should decrease the density of salt water by as much (first effect of volume reduction) and this phenomenon should reduce the temperature water and therefore reduce its thermal expansion! (Second effect of volume reduction, which is cumulative to the first) and increase in the temperature zone between 0 ° and 4 ° C, which has the effect of "contracting the water" (third effect of decrease in volume, which would be combined with the other two). Am i good?

......

Image -> []


And it continues :

Wiki source: surface water temperature (0-100m) in the Arctic: -1,5 to -0,5 ° C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean

I don't see how fresh water (0 ° C minimum) mixed with saline water at -1,5 ° C can still cool it ...

In short ..... !

8)
0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
User avatar
highfly-addict
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 757
Registration: 05/03/08, 12:07
Location: Pyrenees, 43 years
x 7

And to drive the point home ...




by highfly-addict » 05/05/11, 11:50

0 x
"God laughs at those who deplore the effects of which they cherish the causes" BOSSUET

"We see what we believes"Dennis MEADOWS
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 05/05/11, 13:54

An increasingly unstable chaotic system, clearly visible on the curve over 5 million years is almost unpredictable and therefore this study has results that are not at all certain, given the complexity of the multiple chaotic phenomena involved, all very difficult to evaluate.
The risk exists, but is not certain.
125000 years ago, without CO2, a stronger warming of 2 to 3 ° C and 3 to 5 m of higher seas had taken place !!
So instability without certain CO2.

But if we continue to multiply the CO2, by 2 then by 3, etc. then by 10, then the warming is certain and gigantic and identical to the heat of 56 million years ago of + 15 ° C temperature water even at the poles !!
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 100 guests