Just like Archimedes discovered millennia ago, it is well known today that the Arctic ice cap displaces it’s own weight in the water so that when it melts it will not cause a rise in global sea level.
Surprisingly, the National Science Foundation has just figured this out (thanks to someone complaining about it) and has issued a correction to their sea ice page.
The error was first pointed out by commenter Steven Skinner on WUWT on March 25th 2010, who wrote:
The NSF, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and the Japanese government cooperated in funding a research project called SHEBA (Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic) back in 1997. Considering the big names in funding I was surprised they allowed the conclusion in the last sentence past scientific proof reading before publication. The bit from ‘melting sea ice…’
It’s fixed now, see the BEFORE and AFTER.
WUWT reader Dave Burton, who called NSF on the error and asked for a correction writes in an email to them:
Since the error was on your site for over 6.5 years, misleading readers into believing that melting sea ice contributes to coastal sea level rise, I think it is important that you identify the error on your site, with a footnote which explains what was wrong with it.
I always wondered why I’d get the occasional angry email claiming melting Arctic sea ice would raise sea levels dramatically and “why don’t you get it?” …to which I’d reply “look up the principle of buoyancy”. Now I know.
Further suggested reading: 10 Scientific Laws and Theories You Really Should Know
Dave Springer says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:59 am
Scientists that can do science do do science. Those that can’t do science teach science and those that can’t teach science become NSF (NCSE, NAS, AAAS, NSTA, IPCC, etc) staff.
…the rest just try to bamboozle people in internet forums (LOL)
[NOTE: That’s one millennium, two millennia. -REP, the incurably pedantic moderator]
Actually two millenniums is also acceptable. There’s no requirement in English to use Latin plurals and for some words, like insurance premiums, the Latin plural premia is quite uncommon although technically acceptable if you don’t mind readers viewing it askance.
@ur momisugly JJThoms,
Thanks for that reference.
I am now completely persuaded on that issue.
To the WUWT poster who alluded to ‘a troll’, I must demur. The point of the blog is interesting commentary on puzzling things- JJThoms comment certainly qualifies.
Just a nit to pick here, but I did follow that link to the 10 things about science I should know. Unless I’m much mistaken, they are trying to tell people that the theory of relativity is actually a law.
@Kev-in-Uk – I don’t think the lava ocean is very viscous. It doesn’t look very viscous at all when it comes out of volcanoes. It is so hot it’s hard to see how it could be viscous down there. Possibly the pressure could increase the viscosity, but I doubt it would that much.
Of course the crust has significant rigidity. So when you melt a glacier you don’t see the land underneath immediately spring up. But that doesn’t mean the large semi-rigid “crust boat” on which the glacier is resting, doesn’t quickly float up some amount that is small because it is spread out over the large area of the “crust boat”
It’s obious the warmist never take their drinks on the rocks
JJThoms says:
I believe that what is not shown in those pictures is that the ice is resting on the bottom of the beaker.
ola tedin says:
October 10, 2011 at 1:02 pm
It’s obvious the warmist never take their drinks on the rocks
From their results I would guess their preference would be, a can of beer just far enough below freezing so it turns to slush when opened, and the out gassing CO2 causes the resultant foam trapped in the slush to spill out over the top of the can, before they can get started on swilling it down.
Mindbuilder says:
October 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I don’t have time to do some link building for you. As a geologist, take it from me that the earths crust does not sit on a lava ocean that you seem to imagine. Mantle is highly viscous, pressurized material – when we see it at the surface (volcanoes) it has depressurized and all the volatiles, water, etc make it more fluid. Again, an easy analogy would be a bottle of fizzy drink (complete with dreaded CO2). shake it and what happens when you open the top? how viscous is the bubbly foam compared to the liquid in the bottle? (in geological terms, pumice stone would be a good example of foamed lava). As a slight aside, molten magma erupts through only weak spots in the crust, these are probably based over massive magma ‘plumes’ in the mantle material. either side of the plumes, the rock is not in such a molten state as the rock is of different composition. Those lava lamps are a good analogy – the blobs of the lava dont mix with the surrounding fluid, but rise up as they are heated at the bottom and their density changes..
You can tell that the ice in the beaker is not floating, but is resting on the bottom, because it is leaning to one side in the photo. It is leaning against the left side of the beaker, but you can see that the part below the waterline is to the right side of the beaker. If the ice were floating, then the part above the waterline would be centered above the part below the waterline.
GOSAT shows CO2 fluctuating between 360ppm and 390ppm.
Strangely enough, Mauna Loa is relatively stable compared to the rest of the worls.
Many of the commentators here seem to have forgotten that one of the most important aspects of science is replication of results. So after you’ve observed what happens to the ice in your glass of gin/scotch/JB, dispose of the contents and repeat the experiment.
After 5 or 6 replicates you should have an answer. It may not be to the question you started with, but you’ll have answer about something, or even everything!
@Kev-in-Uk says:
The idea that glass is a liquid which flows very slowly is false. It is a solid. Old glass panels are sometimes thicker at the bottom (and elsewhere) because of imperfections during manufacture.
To anyone inclined to do the the experiment yourself, I encourage you to seal your beaker with plastic wrap on the top while you wait for the ice to melt. Otherwise, your experimental result may be distorted by condensation/evaporation.
Theo Goodwin says:
October 10, 2011 at 10:55 am
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:26 am
“Talking of buoyancy, as silly question for the day, with CO2′s molecular weight around 44 and the air’s 28 shouldn’t even well-mixed CO2 have a rather higher concentration near the ground? I mean, the concentration profile of CO2 according to height cannot be the same as the one for oxygen, can it?”
The settling out speed of CO2 in our atmosphere is too slow for the speeds with which the atmosphere circulates/moves/overturns. Ordinary thermals are enough to lift heavier than air objects high up into the atmosphere. I was once a couple of thousand feet up over High Wycombe when a paper bag went past on it’s way up, and the air had a dusty taste to it. There was a study carried out from a balloon a while back, to see what was carried aloft. Dust, pollen, small spiders were some of the things found, all of which are denser than CO2. There is just too much atmospheric movement for any settling to be noticeable. Even ‘settled’ weather, as in high pressures tend to have higher concentrations of pollutants higher up.
Ice is nice enny kinda plice.
==================
Yes, Frank, you’re right. The NSF was trying to get us all alarmed over an imperceptibly insignificant rise in the wavelets between our toes down at the beach.
So, I guess the website was right the first time. Better retract the correction.
I think, therefore I bathe.
==================
So since a significant portion of arctic sea-ice melts and re-forms each year, is there a matching seasonal component to sea-levels? That would seem to be the real experiment for if melting sea-ice had a significant affect on sea-levels.
Though, I do approve of the gin & tonic experiments.
1. Take a volume of salt water that represents the water in the oceans and put it in a basin that (somehow) roughly relates to the size and shape of the ocean basins of the world (i.e. cliffs in some areas, marshes and bays in others).
2. Add crushed ice that would be representative of the amount of sea ice (the “average” volume of sea ice over the last 30 years would be a good enough guesstimate in my opinion).
3. Let the ice melt.
4. Measure the difference in the level of water in the basin.
It’s like throwing the ice from a cooler chest into Disney World’s “World Showcase Lagoon” and expecting to flood out the Morocco pavilion. Even ramping up the amount of ice won’t make a difference until the volume of the ice approaches a significant fraction of the volume of the body of water. The floating ice caps just aren’t that much water, compared to the oceans.
daveburton says:
October 10, 2011 at 1:20 pm
JJThoms says:
———————————————————
In a paper titled “The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level” submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.
———————————————————
Noerdlinger calculates 4 cm. That seems rather high.
1. Earth’s surface is 4*pi*R^2 where R=radius=6,378 km
2. Surface of Earth is 5.11E+08 sq km.
3. Volume of Arctic sea ice from PIOMAS is 2.87E+04 cu km.
4. Surface area of oceans is about 70% earth or 3.58E+08 sq km.
5. If ice melted evenly over earth’s surface (2.87E+04/3.58E+08) = 8.02E-05 km
6. Converted to meters = 8.02E-02 m.
7. Converted to millimeters = 80.2 mm.
8. If only 2.6% displacement occurs (fresh versus salt) then 80 x 0.026 = 2.09 mm.
But this is only true if all the Arctic sea ice melts. The volume peaks at 28,700 cu km in the winter and reaches a minimum of 12,300 cu km. So (28,700-12,300)/28,700 is “normal” melting or 1.20 mm of melting occurs every year on an annual basis. If all the remaining sea ice melted the additional sea level rise should be (12,300/28,700)*2.09 or 0.90 mm of additional melting.
I’m not sure where Noerdlinger gets 4 cm. Is my math above wrong? Or is my PIOMAS volume estimate wrong? Even 4 cm isn’t very alarming, but then I didn’t just purchase water front property.
No more than you worry that the air in your SCUBA tank will segregate over time. After all, N2 has a MW of 28 vs 32 for O2.
Molecules in a gas are so energetic that they stay mixed in any container. The BULK properties of CO2 might lead to suffocation events such as are seen when certain lakes suffer an overturning event, but the gas dissipates and mixes with the surrounding atmosphere rather quickly. Say you took a pipe 1000 ft in length and raised it up right. Pressurize the pipe with N2. Introduce a measured volume of O2 or CO2 at the bottom of the pipe. The trace gas will immediately begin to diffuse through the bulk gas. Over time, you will note that your O2 or CO2 sensors, placed along the pipe at say100 ft intervals, will show increasing concentrations of the trace gas at each height as a function of time. Eventually, the concentration will be uniform in the pipe.
aurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:26 am
“Talking of buoyancy, as silly question for the day, with CO2′s molecular weight around 44 and the air’s 28 shouldn’t even well-mixed CO2 have a rather higher concentration near the ground? I mean, the concentration profile of CO2 according to height cannot be the same as the one for oxygen, can it?”
____________________
Theo Goodwin says:
October 10, 2011 at 10:55 am
I have been asking this question, and similar questions about our empirical knowledge of CO2 concentrations, for years. The only answer you will get from the Warmista is that CO2 is well-mixed. They will not address any question about measurements, experiments, or anything similar. In other words, the answers you get are typical Warmista answers.
____________________
If you want a different “take” on the answer that is not CAGW try:
http://www.co2web.info/
Specifically the pdfs:
http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
Chemical Laws for Distribution of CO2 in Nature: http://www.co2web.info/esef4.htm This is the short version.
Longer version: http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf
Gary Pearse says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:24 pm
You can always find the nigglers who can point to a physics experiment that says the sealevel goes up. But lets do the experiment properly and see what we get: take seawater in a beaker and measure, freeze a layer on the surface and measure, finally thaw it out again and measure. If you get rising levels this way, we can solve th world’s water problems.
You mean sea ice wasn’t plunked in by someone like the whiskey drinkers on here?
@JJThoms says:
“Sea Ice (even created from the ocean) is much less salty than sea water. The density of sea water is greater than the ice. The ice will (according to archimedes) displace its own WEIGHT. The volume of sea water displaced will be less than the VOLUME of ice displacing it. QED”
JJThoms please admit that you have made an embarrassingly stupid blooper. How can the volume of ANYTHING being displaced be less than the volume of the thing displacing it?
That’s NOT what Noerdlinger has claimed. He is saying that the volume of fresh water is greater than that of salt water. Thus the volume of fresh water will be greater than the volume of salt water AFTER it has melted and displaced the sea water. “it does not displace the same volume as the MELTWATER”.
Noerdlinger claims that this will cause a 2.6% increase in the volume of seawater.
But
1. He assumes the density of frozen sea water is 1 – it is not.
2. When sea water freezes it occludes salt some of which gets trapped in the ice the rest gets dissolved in the surrounding sea water
3. Melting sea ice does not melt in one go. And as it melts it dissolves sea salt and becomes saltier and denser.
So I dont think his treatise is accurate. The difference would be far less.