On Graywolf wrote: > Let's stick some thinking in here. > > 44% of the ice is floating. That means it would have no effect on sea level. > > 38% is resting on ground. However a lot of that is below sea level and > would that portion would actually lower sea level if as it melts. The > portion above sea level would increase the sea level however. So we can > ignor any ice that is below sea level at this time which thins the part > we are talking about by nearly 9000 feet. I see no analysis of the > percentage of the ice this applies to.
Right. 44% + 38% = 82%. Let's do some more thinking. I'll leave the missing 12% for you to explain. :-) However, the logic that melting ice below sea level will not increase the sea level is a misconception. The weight of the ice displace less water than it contributes when it melts because of the differences in density. The ice is more buoyant in salt water, which has higher density than freshwater. This webpage demostrate this with amazing simplicity, and an experiment which can be repeated at home: http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html > Most of the remainder are actually somthing like ice rivers that are > moving into the sea slowly all the time, and presumably being recycled > to a certain percent. Presumably? Certain percent? Uhoh... > The land area of Anartica if all that ice melted would be something > about 50% of the area usually listed. I haven't checked if this figure is correct, but I don't see the significance either. Given that the water which will occupy the vacant volume after the ice will actually use more space than the ice did, it's kinda pointless. > The current theory is that the ice is slowly melting (consistanent with > what has been happening for at least he past 10K years). And in a > geographically short period of time (measured in hundreds of years, if > not thousands, they will be fully melted. Which has happened several > times in the past eons. Yes. And curiously, the sea level looks to be at an record-breaking low level on a geological timescale. Good to see that you at least acknowledge that there *is* a change in climate. > Therefore I submit that you will have plenty of time to pack up and > move. However, you will forget your tooth brush. Well if your time frame is correct I'd hardly need one for where I'd be going, would I? :-) People in Bangladesh, Mekong delta and Florida may not be as lucky. And again, the latter is part of a great nation with plenty of space to relocate people into. The former two does not have that option, and will cause a migration. > And I am done with this thread, because it has become apparent that I am > arguing against some of the people here's religion. No, I don't think this is anyone's religion, possibly with exception of Cotty and that Gaia stuff <g>. But maybe some had more knowledge on the subject than you anticipated? Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
