Not true. If you have a drink with ice cubes, filled to the brim, and you let the cubes melt, the drink wont overflow

[ame="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/448454/global_warming_is_lie/"]Global Warming Is Lie! Video[/ame]



edit: ok fair enough land based glaciers forgot about them Lmao blame forum i got it from

Where did the extra water go?

Let me guess.... there is no extra water, its all there in volume (ice) plus some air. If you fill a container with water to the brim, and freeze it, the ice level rises? Anyone old enough to remember frozen bottles of milk on the doorstep when UK had cold winters and milk deliveries will remember the "stalk of cream" the birds used to peck at after the milk delivery and before the milk was taken in for a nice earl morning cuppa!

I remember seeing a movie where they had a cup full of water, then more was slowly poured into it, but still it didn't spill...

Surface tension? Thats what flies walk on without sinking.

That is a very basic science and somewhat flawed, the chap should have marked the level prior to putting the ice in - the level of the water in the glass rises as the ice is added.

The ice caps covering the landmasses of the north and south are not in the oceans but are effectively stored on land. Look at greenland, it is a landmass covered by ice, therefore if it melts the water goes into the ocean potentially raising sea level, same for antartica.

Sure the melting of sea ice would have no effect on sea levels which what this is effectively simulating.

Hear Hear Mr P

lol yeah realised that after stealing it from another forum

luvduvs said:

I remember seeing a movie where they had a cup full of water, then more was slowly poured into it, but still it didn't spill...

Click to expand...

That must have been a very boring movie

If the icecaps were pure ice with no landmass undeath them and they melted then it's possible the sea levels could actually fall. Why? A lot of icebergs that you see only represent about 20% or so of the whole iceberg. The rest is under water (remember the saying "just the tip of the iceberg"?) Now, when water freezes, it expands. So if all the icebergs melted the area of ice would take up more volume than the water needed to make the ice. Therefore if all the icebergs melt the sea levels would go down!

But as Mr. Pottleflump says, a lot of ice caps are on solid land masses so the water levels WOULD rise if they melted. As to whether the melting is caused by man made global warming or natural warming is another debate entirely...

my house is far above sea level

1986Uno45S said:

If the icecaps were pure ice with no landmass undeath them and they melted then it's possible the sea levels could actually fall. Why? A lot of icebergs that you see only represent about 20% or so of the whole iceberg. The rest is under water (remember the saying "just the tip of the iceberg"?) Now, when water freezes, it expands. So if all the icebergs melted the area of ice would take up more volume than the water needed to make the ice. Therefore if all the icebergs melt the sea levels would go down!

Click to expand...

Think about it Chas, carefully, this isn't true It would be exactly the same, exactly.

The Negotiator said:

Think about it Chas, carefully, this isn't true It would be exactly the same, exactly.

Click to expand...

and if you have any doubts, watch the video.

The Negotiator said:

Think about it Chas, carefully, this isn't true It would be exactly the same, exactly.

Click to expand...

It would? I've been working with chemotherapy all week and I swear I've got some in me and it's messed my brain up. Either that or the 7am starts are having an effect!

Ok, I'm kind of lost. How is my logic theory flawed? Water expands when it turns to ice and thus takes up a greater volume. Ice when it melts reverts back to water, thus taking up a lesser volume.

My brain hurts and I need an explanation

jug said:

and if you have any doubts, watch the video.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the volume difference of melting ice in a glass of water is too small to be noticeable compared with icecaps and the world's oceans. I swear it went down a bit! (Must be that damn chemo again!)

Ok, who can explain this properly and send me to the stupid corner?

1986Uno45S said:

It would? I've been working with chemotherapy all week and I swear I've got some in me and it's messed my brain up. Either that or the 7am starts are having an effect!

Ok, I'm kind of lost. How is my logic theory flawed? Water expands when it turns to ice and thus takes up a greater volume. Ice when it melts reverts back to water, thus taking up a lesser volume.

My brain hurts and I need an explanation

Click to expand...

The amount of ice in the water will take up more volume (blame hydrogen bonding) as you say, and as it melts, unlike "normal" substances, the overall volume drops. HOWEVER, thanks to density, you see part of the ice cube will float above so that realistically, when melted, the actual volume should remain the same as the part of the ice outside of the water also melts It does show it really well in the video.

Yes, I agree with that. But is there a critical percentage of exposed ice compared with submerged ice where my theory would hold? Or do iceberges/ ice cubes always have the same percentage exposed when in water therefore the 'no change' theory would always hold true?

So if the polar caps melt we won't drown, we'll just fry instead

If we just had suspended ice it would be ok. The part of the ice that goes under water is enough to displace the volume of water that equals the mass of the iceburg, since mass is a fixed quantity, the volume will be the same once the ice melts, does that make sense?

The Negotiator said:

If we just had suspended ice it would be ok. The part of the ice that goes under water is enough to displace the volume of water that equals the mass of the iceburg, since mass is a fixed quantity, the volume will be the same once the ice melts, does that make sense?

Click to expand...

Um yes. My theory is bunk as I was getting mass and volume mixed up

I shall go to the stupid corner now

That's cool, I haven't even thought it through so am open to being wrong

Always deal with mass, volume is evil...

The Negotiator said:

Always deal with mass, volume is evil...

Click to expand...

Ok, try this one for size. Explain the relationship between mass and gravity, and better still explain why two bodies of mass 'attract' each other.

I know from reading "A Brief History of Time" that this will apparently solve most of the unexplained physical theories of astro-physics and unlock many secrets of our physical universe!

Now there's a challenge for you Paul