Another fun climate change thread

If you read my post you will find that the first source doesn't give the average, the second does.

I did read the AntarcticGlaciers.org site information. I don't post sources I don't read.
I have no idea why you think their estimates are wrong.
Yes, if all the land based ice were to melt and flow into the oceans you would add that volume of water to the existing oceans.
We all know water is capable of movement. So what? Do you really think that the oceans are level, like a pool table? Everyone knows the height varies due to many factors.
Melting ice wouldn't sit on top of the current ocean waters, it would mix with it.
Water is essentially incompressible. It can be compressed but it requires tremendous pressure. Ocean water at a depth of one mile will only compress by about 1 percent. The average depth of the ocean is 12,100 feet or 2.29166667 miles, so if it'll make you happy subtract an average 2% from their figures. (Not that you seem to believe any scientific figures or math)
Evaporated water returns to the oceans as rain, snow, sleet, etc. It isn't suspended in the atmosphere indefinitely.

But anyway how would you calculate the effect of melting ice joining the ocean waters?
Please show me the correct method.

 

Yes, I'm serious..why are their estimates wrong?
They didn't put the melted water on top of the ocean, they added it to the volume of the ocean.

If that amount of water were added to the ocean(s) when you go to the each there wouldn't be a "wall" of water 58 meters high any more than there is a "wall' of water of any height at the beach today. By definition a wall has a length greater than its thickness. The melted water wouldn't pile up at the beaches and form a wall it would be dispersed along the entire volume of the ocean.
It would flow out across the entire ocean.

Water is essentially incompressable. It can be compressed but it takes tremendous force. The amount of compression that water will experience in the ocean due to land mass ice melting is negligible.

​

Now when you dive into the water the pressure you experience is due to the weight of the water, not the compression of the water.
In a normal atmosphere the air pushes against your body at 14.5 pounds per square inch. You don't notice that because your body is also internally pressurized at 14.5 pounds per square inch. As you dive into the water it covers your body, and water has weight. The deeper you go the taller the column of water on top of your body and thus the greater the weight of that column. It's just like stacking bricks on your head. The more bricks, the more pressure you feel.
Every 33 feet of increase in depth adds 14.5 psi.

I understand that you seem to think any scientific or governmental organization has no credibility....for some reason, and you believe that simple math has no value...that doesn't change the facts however.
NSIDC
NOAA

 

I have no idea what you're talking about with the 30 year figure.

No there aren't any square or rectangular walls. Walls are three dimensional, squares and rectangles are two dimensional.

When we talk about water added to the surface of the ocean, we are talking about increasing the volume of the ocean, as the sides and bottom of the ocean are land the water is contained by those areas. So the height of the ocean will increase, or the surface will rise. That's what is meant by water being added to the surface. If it was added to the bottom it would be under the bottom of the ocean...under land, therefore subterranean.

Try adding melted ice water to a half full glass and see what happens.

Did you watch the video? Do you understand what the word "essentially" means in this context? Did you hear the part about how much water would compress at the bottom of the ocean?
Have you ever heard of an air compressor? I can buy one in many stores and I have one in my garage. Ever hear of a water compressor?
In fact due to my house having a water well, once the water is pumped up into the house it enters a pressure tank which pressurizes it so that it will flow out of the faucets. But guess what? The water isn't pressurized, a pocket of air in the tank is pressurized and that's what forces the water out of the tank. It isn't feasible to pressurize the water...that's what the word essentially means.

But anyway let me ask you again.....how would you calculate the effect of melting ice joining the ocean waters?
Please show me the correct method.

 

I don't know where you get your information as you haven't listed a source.

Melting Ice Raised Sea Levels More Than Previously Thought, Study Says

Is sea level rising?

Sea level rise

Melting glaciers raise sea level

 

Antarctica's Ice Sheets Are Melting Faster — And From Beneath

East Antarctica’s ice is melting at an unexpectedly rapid clip, new study suggests

etc.

 

Damn it, I thought I posted a reply to this already!

I don't know where you got the 15 meter figure, please show me.

Here are the stats from my recent posts:
ClimateNews reports sea levels have risen 5.9 to 7.08 inches, or 0.14986 to 0.179832 meters, in the last 100 years, not 119. And the rate is increasing.

NOAA reports the rate for 2014 and 1993. It doesn't address any other years at all let alone the last 119. And the rate is increasing.

Wikipedia reports 6.3 to 8.3 in, or 0.16002 to 0.2032 meters in the last 100 years, not 119. And the rate is increasing.

ScienceDaily reports 20 cm, or 7.874016 inches, or .2 meters, in the last 119 years. So you got one time span correct. And the rate is increasing.

NPR doesn't give a figure.

Science reports 13.8 millimeters, or 0.5433071 inches, or 0.0138 meters over the past 40 years due only to Antarctica’s melting ice melting, not all melting. And the rate is increasing.

Only one of my posts says anything about 119 years.

Regardless, none of these figures have anything to do with the 66.07 meter global sea level rise figure as that is based on ALL the land based ice in the world melting...not the rise in the seas due to what has already melted.
So I don't really know what you're talking about.

 

I don't know what you mean by, "It's not based on anything?"

For simplicity let's take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's figure of a 3.1 millimeters per year rise in ocean levels since 1993. That ads up to 7.5 inches between 1901 and 2010. 7.5 inches doesn't seem a lot, but already eight islands have disappeared in the Pacific due to the rise.
Kepidau en Pehleng and Nahlapenlohd islands in Micronesia have been completely submerged.

Additionally the Laiap, Nahtik and Ros island chains went under between 2007 and 2014. That's an additional six islands.

All this is just the beginning effect of global warming on the oceans.
Your figure of .2 meters in 199 years, so don't worry, fails to take into account the rate of change.

​

You assume a linear rate of change, it isn't linear. Notice on the graph the rate between 1900 and 1930 was .6 mm per year,1930 to 1992 1.4 mm per year, 1993 to 2015 2.6 mm per year, and now we are at 3.3 mm per year. The danger is the rate is going to keep accelerating.

 

Photographic evidence isn't the only means of verification and if I were to provide such evidence you would merely say it wasn't a real photograph. But here's two.

The remains of one of six partially eroded islands in the nation of Solomon Islands (Picture: Simon Albert/Reuters)


Five islands have disappeared and another six have been badly eroded in the Solomon Islands owing to rising sea levels, according to an Australian study published on Friday.
​

It's far better to read the studies that have been conducted on this matter. But there are several problems with this approach. Finding the studies and getting access to them are two problems. Here's a site with forty six different studies listed:
Identifying and assessing evidence for recent shoreline change attributable to uncommonly rapid sea-level rise in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, Northwest Pacific Ocean (Note that some links are broken, some require a fee to access, some are related to sea rise, and some refer to articles that must be found in hard copy.)

This is why we rely on experts, reliable reports, scientific articles, etc. for information. The original sources are hard to attain, complicated to read, and many times cost money.

The third problem is those who don't believe anything or anyone but their own preconceived notions.
Your problem is you don't trust any expert, scientist, reporter or media outlet. I can list many sources that show charts, facts, and figures...but you won't believe them anyway.
You have made up your mind and nothing will change it.
There is no further point to my listing any facts, figures, sources, articles, original photographs, charts, graphs, or anything else.

End of story.