Comments on: Jason-2 satellite set to launch June 15th from Vandenberg, will track sea level

By: MattV

MattV — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:15:59 +0000

Thanks guys, that does answer the question for me, so basically no sigificant loss or gain then. it was just a thought i had when reading about the changes in ocean levels and such. Thanks again.

By: Steve Stip

Steve Stip — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:23 +0000

MattV,

I seem to remember that what McGrats says is true. I did not take into account the different densities of fresh water versus saline. But I am sure there is a much more elegant way to look at the problem. It will come to me eventually.

By: McGrats

McGrats — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:25:00 +0000

MattV wrote: “Please correct me if I am wrong and don’t remember my science classes correctly but one thing I was wondering, wouldn’t the meling of the Artic ice cap actaully lower ocean levels?

I raised that very question to Dr. Fred Singer a couple of month’s ago. His reply:

“Jack: Floating ice (sea ice, icebergs) melting will not increase sea level. Only ice from glaciers (non-floating) – Fred”

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:19:54 +0000

Swampie,
Have you priced beach front property lately?? I guess the market doesn’t put alot of stock in sea level rise. Seems like could get it at fire sale prices, don’t it?
Mike

By: Steve Stip

Steve Stip — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:15:59 +0000

drat again, make that second 5.76% 6.39% instead.

Keep your eyesight if you can folks.

By: Steve Stip

Steve Stip — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:12:49 +0000

drat, I meant to say the “volume of the mass” not “mass”

By: Steve Stip

Steve Stip — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:10:07 +0000

MattV,

Dang, my math is rusty but here goes. Floating ice has about 13% of its mass above the water line. When this melts its volume will decrease to 12.15%. The mass of the ice below the water line will shrink from 87% to 82.24%. So below the water line the volume will shrink by 5.76%. But this is offset by the 12.15% above the water line by 5.76%. So the volume of water from a melted iceberg will be 5.76% greater than that of the iceberg.

By: Retired Engineer

Retired Engineer — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:44 +0000

MattV: Floating ice displaces it’s own weight of water. It will weigh the same before or after melting, so the net change is pretty small. Fresh water is slightly less dense than salt water, so melted, it will have a slightly larger volume than the salt water it displaced as ice. Slight rise. Ice on land is another issue: if it melts and runs into the ocean, bigger rise.

BTW, ice shelves don’t collapse. They float to begin with. They may break up and float away, more with a whimper than a bang.

By: Steve Stip

Steve Stip — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:43:04 +0000

MattV,

I’ll risk your question. The answer is that the ice in the arctic above sea level is about 11% if I remember correctly. This amount, which is not displacing water, when it melts, probably vastly exceeds the decrease in volume caused by the melting below sea level. Don’t ask me to do the math. But I might do it anyway unless someone beats me to it.

By: MattV

MattV — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:52:48 +0000

Please correct me if I am wrong and don’t remember my science classes correctly but one thing I was wondering, wouldn’t the meling of the Artic ice cap actaully lower ocean levels? I mean ice is less dense than water and therefore displaces less water, so when it melts, it condenses and takes up less space, i.e. lowering water level??? Or does this only apply to small systems (like a glass of water with ice, as the ice melts the water goes down).

By: Steve Stip

Steve Stip — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:17:15 +0000

Science must be abolished! It is starting to give politically incorrect answers.
Don’t you scientist guys know when to quit?

By: swampie

swampie — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:41:49 +0000

I think I would have noticed if the Florida Keys had disappeared under the rising sea.

By: swampie

swampie — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:29:35 +0000

Well, that screws up my plans for having beach front property.

By: McGrats

McGrats — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:25:01 +0000

I’m always amazed how the Pogie’s scaremongering is so successful. Thay rant and rave over a little bitty seal level rise when areas such as St. John’s New Brunswick handle 27′ tides on a daily basis.

Have you ever walked DOWN the gangplank 27′ to your ship’s deck after being out drinking for a few hours? Of course, that’s when men were made of steel and ships of wood. Now it’s the other way around.

Harumph… 12.6 inches in a century!

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

By: crosspatch

crosspatch — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:57:49 +0000

“A new satellite set to launch next month will monitor the rate of sea-level rise”

Well, if it was designed to monitor the rate of rise, it will probably succeed in just that. I noticed they said rate of rise, not rate of change. The possibility that sea levels might not rise over time apparently hasn’t occurred to them. I hope a negative number doesn’t blow the on-board software up.