Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner
21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
But it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg.
Uh, what?
If it's an "equal volume", how could it contribute more? In fact, an equal volume of snow is nowhere near the same mass as an equal volume of ice due to density differences. Snow, even packed snow, has a ton of air in it.
I know we're getting into the weeds here, but this statement doesn't make sense.

It's largely irrelevant though. If the entirety of predicted glacial and polar cap melting (458.3 gigatonnes) would equate to a 1.27mm sea level rise, snow and ice packs will be minuscule by comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,082 Posts
Uh, what?
If it's an "equal volume", how could it contribute more? In fact, an equal volume of snow is nowhere near the same mass as an equal volume of ice due to density differences. Snow, even packed snow, has a ton of air in it.
I know we're getting into the weeds here, but this statement doesn't make sense.

It's largely irrelevant though. If the entirety of predicted glacial and polar cap melting (458.3 gigatonnes) would equate to a 1.27mm sea level rise, snow and ice packs will be minuscule by comparison.
You're confused.

The ice melting from an iceberg will contribute less to the water level than the same ice melt from a glacier.

This is because, by definition, an iceberg is already IN the water. A glacier, by definition, is NOT in the water. Therefor, 1 cubic (UOM) of ice in a glacier that melts will raise the level of the water more than 1 cubic (UOM) of ice that melts from a glacier.

You even said this:

Floating ice that melts into water WILL NOT change the water's overall level.
So now it appears you don't even understand your own statement.
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
You're confused.

The ice melting from an iceberg will contribute less to the water level than the same ice melt from a glacier.

This is because, by definition, an iceberg is already IN the water. A glacier, by definition, is NOT in the water. Therefor, 1 cubic (UOM) of ice in a glacier that melts will raise the level of the water more than 1 cubic (UOM) of ice that melts from a glacier.

You even said this:



So now it appears you don't even understand your own statement.
No... you claimed "it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg".
Now you're trying to shift back to stating "ice on land will contribute more than ice in water". But that's not what you actually said. You made a claim of equivalence on volume alone.

If you want to retract your claim of unequal effect from equal volume, that's fine. We don't need to confuse the issue further.
But if you want to double down on the inaccurate claim and continue to try to pass it off as intended, that'll be funny, but wrong.
Also, you used "glacier" twice in your elaborate comparison statement. Might want to fix that.

We already established that ice not currently in the water will add to the level if it makes it to the sea. But the effect is minimal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,082 Posts
No... you claimed "it certainly will be more than an equal volume of ice that melts in an iceberg".
Now you're trying to shift back to stating "ice on land will contribute more than ice in water". But that's not what you actually said. You made a claim of equivalence on volume alone.

If you want to retract your claim of unequal effect from equal volume, that's fine. We don't need to confuse the issue further.
But if you want to double down on the inaccurate claim and continue to try to pass it off as intended, that'll be funny, but wrong.
Also, you used "glacier" twice in your elaborate comparison statement. Might want to fix that.

We already established that ice not currently in the water will add to the level if it makes it to the sea. But the effect is minimal.
I know what I said. You either just don't understand it or are feigning ignorance. I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

Maybe a picture a will help.

113828


Assume the two glasses are the same size (volume), and the levels of the water are the same. Also assume the physical volume of the two cubes are the same.

Now.... which ice cube, after if melts, will raise the water level more?
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
I know what I said. You either just don't understand it or are feigning ignorance. I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

Maybe a picture a will help.

View attachment 113828

Assume the two glasses are the same size (volume), and the levels of the water are the same. Also assume the physical volume of the two cubes are the same.

Now.... which ice cube, after if melts, will raise the water level more?
I'm gonna go ahead and just stop you there.
It was clear what you said. It was also clear that we already covered ice that is not currently floating, and its impact.
You made a blanket assertion about two equal volumes that was factually false.
Keep digging the hole though.
;)
 

·
Super Moderator
1-6 months, natural disasters or economic collapse
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
There's no argument. We already settled that ice out of the water will contribute.
You tend to get your feels hurt a bit too easily. Try to just enjoy a conversation once in a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
More flooding appears to be on the horizon for people in low lying and coastal areas.


NASA: Moon wobble to cause more Earth flooding in the future

What impact will this have for the US and individual states? I hope states are ready for the cost and mess this might cause. Will this impact you? I am lucky, this will not do anything to my area.
As to the question, "Will it impact you." If nothing else it may increase my property value, since I'm up in the mountains. Anyone want to buy a few acres? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auntie

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,281 Posts
I fully understand lunar librations and tides. I still can't make the connecting between them and 'global warming', 'climate change' or whatever buzzwords they're using for the next hour.
"They" are saying....if there is more water in the areas that typically contain water, like rivers, lakes and oceans (because of global warming)...the wobbling moon, which causes higher tides at times and lower tides at times, will affect the degree of flooding.
Simply put...if I have a glass of water that is half full and rapidly tip the glass on its edge back and forth, the water probably won't come over the top edge of the glass.
The more water I add to that glass, the likelihood of water coming over the top increases with that same motion.
Make sense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0rocky and Auntie

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
We get the same crap here in Canuckistan. Rich people buy land on flood plains, alter the rivers so they can build their mansions. Then when nature happens they blame everything but their stupidity. Not surprising, these are the same idiots running our countries.

Instead of fighting these idiots I push it, shut off the gas...good, i have 5000L tanks in my barn. Lock us down forever...good I live next to 20000 acres of national forest and I own 200 of it. No more meat....good I dont eat your hormone crap anyways.

We need to give these people 1 month of what they want. Let them eat themselves and make sure we dont save them. Let them rot in the cities.

3 days and the first person would be on the bbq
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top