gordon_dunn Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Looks like a spot of coastal flying is going to get easier by 2100...... Full article at- http://jaysimons.deviantart.com/art/Bri ... -315945336 Interesting read..... Quote....."After sinking of London and Dublin, Birmingham and Belfast have become new capitals of Britain and Ireland".... Belfast....Ireland?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 They'll have to extend the Severn Bridge a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsquared Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Some gut feeling tells me that it won't concern any of us too much.....well at this stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganers Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Looks like I've just bought beach front property! Well future beach front any way !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_dunn Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Dont' think this is really feasable....... is there enough water in the world to increase sea level by 100m?? Dont forget that ice is less dense than water... as it melts it's volume decreases- so if the entire north polar cap melted, in theory sea level will drop. There is an argument for ice resting on top of land melting and raising sea levels-- ie antactic.... but 100metres......??? over the entire surface area of the world, 100m......? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_dunn Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Worth doing the experiment if you don't believe it. Get a pint glass and fill with ice, then top it up to the brim with water. Allow the ice to melt slowly..... you will find that the level of water will drop slightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsquared Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Dont' think this is really feasable....... is there enough water in the world to increase sea level by 100m??Dont forget that ice is less dense than water... as it melts it's volume decreases- so if the entire north polar cap melted, in theory sea level will drop. There is an argument for ice resting on top of land melting and raising sea levels-- ie antactic.... but 100metres......??? over the entire surface area of the world, 100m......? I don't think so. Sorry Gordon but your theory is bogus.......simply fill a glass to the rim with water and ice....wait for the ice to melt....the level does NOT drop...the glass overflows! Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_dunn Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Repeat your experiment, ensuring that the ice is floating. If the ice was totally or partly supported on the bottom of the vessel, then when it melts the water level will certainly rise. Ps.. not my theory.... FACT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsquared Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I agree ice is less dense than water. You are forgetting that the portion of ice floating above the water level ie the level of the glass, once melted adds to the total volume, hence....the glass overflows. I know splitting hairs.....but I don't agree with the theory that if the polar ice melts the sea level will drop. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptwizz Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Gordon is correct that if the ice is floating it obeys archimedes principle. The issue is not with ice melting, but with water expanding as it is heated. Most of the oceans are deep - very deep. About 4000m deep on average. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html Water has a thermal expansion coefficient of 2.07E-4, so a metre depth of water heated through 1°C will increase to 1.000207m. This translates directly to 4000m depth of water, heated through 1°C increasing to 4000.8m depth. To achieve 10m rise in global sea level would require about 12°C temperature rise. The mass of the oceans is very large and the surface area exposed to solar heating is small by comparison. Imagine a 4000m high electric kettle. At 3kW, it would take a bloody long time to heat up, even with the element at the bottom. Put the element at the top and it's even slower. It will likely be quicker to take a few bricks from your house, cycle to the coast and come back the next day for a few more bricks, rather than wait for the coast to come to you. Edited February 6, 2014 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganers Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 So... No beach front property then ?.. Aaawww no fair! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsquared Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Repeat your experiment, ensuring that the ice is floating. If the ice was totally or partly supported on the bottom of the vessel, then when it melts the water level will certainly rise.Ps.. not my theory.... FACT Whale oil beef act! Gordon....I did the ice in the water trick....and it did not overflow! I stand corrected. Thank you for that. I love learning new things...or as in this case, expanding my mind outside its pre-conceived ideas. Cheers. Rob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoobySnacks Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The ice is floating, therefore it displaces its own weight. The volume is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon_dunn Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 alas... the definitive 'eureka' moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.