PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

here is some relevant info from the previous post. real scientists are not really worried about CO2 or melting ice. these are pop psyops to confuse the population(some real facts with scary pronouncements that may not be even slightly realistic). that doesn't mean there's no problem, however. there are many more important climatic factors that are beyond our ken and control. as posted:

On 2006-06-20 16:15, garyb wrote:
here is a truly scholarly article on the subject(you know, from a university study, a school):
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2 ... ce-trends/
be sure to click on "misconceptions" linked also here:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/c ... nceptions/

none on either side has any figures that are anything but speculation and the nsf article is gross simplification.

the ice that is not locked on land will cause NO rise by melting, just like in the glass. the rise would come from land-locked ice melting into the sea.

also, projects like HAARP speak volumes to much more serious human threats to the environment than the common man's auto.

one of the special properties of water is that ice is less dense than liquid water. that's why ice floats on water.

As a matter of fact, water is the only known substance that has that property. If ice would be heavier, life would be impossible: ice would sink untill the whole pool were froozen, killing all life in it. But thanks to the floating ice, it stops circulation at the top layer protecting all life underneath it.

As for the trick with the glass: Archimedes' law of communicating reservoirs says that any object floating in water displaces exactly its own weigth of water.
Since ice floats on water, it's inherently lighter than water, and it would become more dense as it melts. Submerging the ice into the water would push more water aside, making the water level raise artificially.

Ice in the artic (north pole) floats, while Antartica (south pole) is a continent covered with ice. Hm, would have to check on the sea level of the land mass of Antartica, but since they call it a continent I'd say it's all above sea level eh. So any ice melting on Antartica would make sea levels rise globally, just as ice on the mountains in our countries melting would do that...

Just some thoughts

nope, antarctica is well below sea level and hollowed in the middle, a bowl. as much as half of the ice in antarctica is floating(it changes seasonally). there's no guarantee what portion of melting ice would make it to the ocean. neither is there any guarantee that the land masses would remain stable with a sudden thaw(land could rise). there is much speculation whether or not the main antarctic icefield COULD all melt. read that last group of links. even though some antarctic iceshelves(floating ice) have disappeared, overall the total ice, both on the continent and as shelves remains about the same, when winter and summer ice are accounted for.(according to the guys at Colorado State University)

want a real problem relating to sea levels? how about pacific undersea volcanos? land is being built at an extrodinary rate undersea. more land would surely displace water(cause climate change, too)....

what did skwawks call this thing? dynamic.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-20 21:17 ]</font>

imho that quote from Bingo's link ...It houses enough water to raise global sea level by 200 ft. if completely melted. ... is just intended to give a better picture of the amount of ice in the Antarctic ice cap.
It's a pure 'what if scenario' based on geometric figures and doesn't deal with simulations or climate dynamics.

I remember the maps of flooded New Orleans in news, that suggested 'why the heck don't they just...' because one compared it to familiar local maps - thus completely missing dimension.
Realizing that half of Germany from the North Sea to the Alps would be under water made the situation much clearer

cheers, Tom

Thanks for the links Gary.

Check the following statement by Mr. Pielke :-

"Jason-this is a good question, and I am not aware of studies of ice thickness in the Antarctic sea ice. However, sea ice melting will not affect sea level as the same water volume is present whether it is frozen or not. Fresh water input from melting glaciers is required for sea level rise."

Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — April 3, 2006

Note that this refers to ice which is submerged from sea level to the murky depths. Obviously, ANYTHING above sea level (including 100's of millions of tons of ice) which melts into the ocean WILL cause a rise.

Additionally, something which can't be properly accounted for is the earths' change in proximity to the sun. The coming passing of Venus for example could 'in theory' be catastrophic if it causes a significant climate shift. If we were swung into closer proximity to the sun by an unavoidable circumstance, many countries just above sea level housing 100's of millions of people could very very quickly be completely submerged. Holland is one such country with a dense population. There are many others & many coastal regions worldwide which would simply & quickly dissappear.

On 2006-06-20 16:15, garyb wrote:
...as i said, do the experiment for yourself!

put water and icecubes in a glass(enough water that the ice is floating). mark the level. let the ice melt and then mark the level again.
...

I didn't do this myself, but I trust in you.
Since this is a contradiction to the physical model of an 'ideal' ice, there must be a another source.
Have a close look at icecube's from the fridge - there's a lot of air included due to the fast freezing process

'Pure' ice swims on water due to lower density by molecular arrangement and as such cannot change the water level, as the 'difference' (the infamous 10% of the iceberg) is above the waterline and will fill up the 'debit' when melted.

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-06-21 04:47 ]</font>

Anyone know where there's some accurate scientific facts & figures on this subject?

The 90%/10% or 70%/30% blah, just doesn't cut it at all without some respectable research stats.

I want to know with more accuracy what the facts are. I don't have time to google & read scientific papers for hours & hours today, but I will do as soon as I get a decent chunk of free time.

In the meantime, some respectable hard facts would be nice...

if wishes were fishes....

if i got super powers and punch the ground and made a huge earthquake that triggered volcanoes and more earthquakes and tidal waves everyone would be dead.

most of that ice is BELOW sea level already. how will water that is BELOW sea level make the ocean rise? yes, if that amount of water was added to the system withoput ANY other factor changing THEN the sea would certainly rise. THAT's what is misleading about a statistic like this(if the polar ice melted antarctica would flood, but then the SAME or LESS volume would be displaced as far as the earth's surface goes, since most of that water is ALREADY as low as or lower than the ocean). but the question is meaningless and moot. the chances of it all melting is slim to none regardless of what global warming does. Bingo, did you even read ANY of the colorado state site?

as far as ANYONE knows on this earth, at MOST 20-30% of "global warming" is from human activity(CO2).

the earth is in a warming phase? too bad. it's not our fault and it's out of our control, if it's even happening.

i already posted NASA info showing that the sun is burning hotter than ever, i wonder if that has anything to do with things?

no, better to blame common folk. why you're at it, how about some eugenics style genetic cleansing to lower the population and "save" the planet from the scourge of humanity. the problem isn't the people. it's their leaders and teachers. let's start the cleansing there.

also, HAARP and it's ilk have still not been addressed in regards to weather and changiong storm activity. the chinese government was recently involved in waether modification because of drought. weather modification was used in the vietnam war as well. the official story is that there is no such thing as weather mod, yet these examples are in the normal press....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13107271/site/newsweek/
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/im ... 18-tg.html
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index ... &Year=2005
http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/chron.html

a company that specializes in weather modification
http://www.weathermod.com/

On 2006-06-20 16:15, garyb wrote:
if all the ice in the poles melts(of which the majority is under water! i thought that's what the 90% was about. it's certainly not that much, but whatever! it's probably more like 70% of polar ice under water.

glaciers form ice shelves along about half of the coastline, and floating ice shelves constitute 11% of the area of the continent

I hope you trust CIA...

Do you trust British Antarctic Survey (of the Natural Environment Research Council)?
If you do please continue to read what they have to say here:

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is a major control on world sea level and contains enough water to raise sea level by perhaps 65 m.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-21 21:54 ]</font>

ok Bingo, i'm gonna quit this now because you obviously haven't read ANY of the articles i've posted. you know no more than i do about the REALITY of the situation, yet you think you know what you talk about. reading a couple of pop articles is not knowledge. HOW MUCH of that polar ice is ABOVE sea level? that's the only water that can have any effect on sea levels.

also, once more, i quote your own article posted earlier: "Millions of square miles of sea ice surround Antarctica; the extent annually experiences a five-fold increase and decrease, with the winter maximum more than doubling the entire Antarctic region's area of ice coverage." this from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/antpanel/3enviro.htm what does this mean? how can you spout out a figure like 11% of the ice is in sea ice shelves? the shelves are NOT the only ice in water in antartcica! according to your article, the ice in the water is MORE than 50%. i'll admit 70% is too high(though maybe not some years, the figure is dynamic and changes year-round) and go with that figure of 50%. now tell me how when the majority of the rest of the ice is below sea level, there can be flooding from melting? obviously, IF the ice cap's volume of water is just added to the ocean, the level would rise. but is that what would happen in a melt? are you SURE that the entire icecap melting is even possible without everyone alreay being dead long before it happened? i still say that the idea is merely fear-mongering.

YOU are the one brainwashed by cia.
fine, i shot back, and now i'll drop this in favor of good vibes here on planetz. go ahead and make your final claims of my stupidity and insanity and whatever further personal attacks are fitting. you can jump for joy to find you were right later. or not.

...but do read the links i provided and consider that there is more to the story of global warming than meets the eye.

*edit*
no, i don't believe georgie's group. i don't believe ANY of them. the scientists don't even agree. as i said, obviously, if that amount of water were ADDDED to the system, flooding is inevitable. this is a perfect example of statistics lying. if that water is already in the ocean(more than 50%) and below sea level(most of the rest), there can't be sea rise from a melt. also, according to most academics, a pole melt is almost impossible. READ THE COLORADO ST. UNIVERSITY ARTICLES. finally GWB is a strawman. he works for the same group that the heads of Japan, Russia, Germany, England, etc. work for. how else do you explain U.N. dna records being planned for every human on the face of the earth. the earth may be warming, but the issue is just another push towards global government and police state(an excuse for a global regulatory apparatus). it goes hand in hand with national ids and population control. it's a tool for the elite to blame the public's problems on the public after an engineered crisis.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-21 22:15 ]</font>

Now check out these maps (pretty impressive no? but check out the yellow colored outline which represents land above (or at) the sea level):


Bed elevation (entire area south of 60°S)



Bed elevation (West Antarctica)



Ice thickness (entire ice sheet including ice-shelves)


Perspective view of bed elevation model looking into the Ronne Ice Shelf from azimuth 310.



Perspective view of bed elevation model looking towarsd Victoria Land from azimuth 170.



These images came from here

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-21 22:21 ]</font>

On 2006-06-21 22:03, garyb wrote:

also, once more, i quote your own article posted earlier: "Millions of square miles of sea ice surround Antarctica; the extent annually experiences a five-fold increase and decrease, with the winter maximum more than doubling the entire Antarctic region's area of ice coverage." this from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/antpanel/3enviro.htm what does this mean?

What do you think it means?

<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=267">very interesting discussion on the subject</a>

<a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... nteresting article and another discussion on the subject</a>

130,000 years ago, sea levels rose by 25 meters or more over a 500 year period. Something similar, but even faster... IS ..a POSSIBILITY

Oki then maybe back to the point of the article - we're putting our planet to waste. Be it by warming it up, by extinguishing variations of food sources (only a fraction of sorts of grains are being cultivated compared to some years ago, making it most fragile for diseases and ourselves to famine), by exhausting natural resources as oil or forests or fish, or by developing more nukes - we won't have to wait for the sun to explode untill this planet becomes uninhabitable.

Why do people who so much want the best for their kids, fux0r up their kids' habitat so badly? I hope they don't come saying "wir haben es nicht gewust".

i'll speak, since it's not on ice or warming specifically.

i think it really stinks to keep saying "we're doing this or that". ##$#@@!!
"WE" aren't doing ANYTHING. "we" buy what's in the store, "we" like what "they " want us to through advertising and social pressure. "they", who seem to know all of the dangers, finance everything bad and next to nothing good. "they" are using ignorance and planned folly as an excuse to murder. they only real question is "why?". are the people who own everything and control the flow of wealth and the use of resources even human? it's well known that all famine and shortages, all scenes of desolation(like the sahara for example) are man-made, yet the leadership, although well aware of the impending destruction, encourages behavior that is self-destructive. humans are herd creatures. they must follow their leaders because that is how they are wired. if those who have the resources focused just 1/4 of the energy used in getting weathly, gaining more power, and being worshipped into making the world pleasant for all, most serious problems and all shortages would cease and all people would reach their potential. if ANYONE is to be sacrificed to blood-thirsty gods, let it be those who created them. better yet, ignore false deities entirely...

Unfortunately complete anarchy would bring about a police state the likes of which you've never seen or imagined. Films have portrayed such scenarios & to be honest, you'd have to be mad to think complete anarchy & attempted system breakdown would work in 'our' favour. Peoples' inactiveness is more fear of being eliminated or jailed for protesting or taking action than anything else. Freedom of speech is being suppressed & if 'they' have anything to do with it, forums & weblogs will suffer from screening & enforced editing at best, just like the media has for decades.

Set up your own world power designed to eliminate the system run by the current players & what does that scenario become?

The answer is probably ... a mess. But it's already a mess & has been since man first walked.

We are the problem.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-06-22 11:06 ]</font>

What other living creature from the hundreds of thousands on the planet learned to start fires by burning trees, mined coal & other fossil fuels in the planets' history?? erm ... none!!

We are the problem!!