Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Global Warming (Polar ice caps)

  • 08-07-2005 7:31pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,894 ✭✭✭✭


    A while ago i was reading an eng newspaper about how in a 100 years or britain would be turned into a number of islands (big loss) due to rising sea levels due to ice melting. The article said the certain sheets would release enogh water for sea levels to rise several metres. But if i remember correctly water expands when it freezes and about 90% of an ice berg is under water therefor when the ice melts its overall effect wouldn't raise levels that much as most of the water would be filling the space taken up by the ice. So is it just me that thinks they're scaremongering and exaggerating this threat (even though we'l be dead by then so so what...) ie sure if it happens it will release millions of gallons of water but you're forgetting about the millions of gallons of ice its replacing.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    A while ago i was reading an eng newspaper about how in a 100 years or britain would be turned into a number of islands (big loss) due to rising sea levels due to ice melting. The article said the certain sheets would release enogh water for sea levels to rise several metres. But if i remember correctly water expands when it freezes and about 90% of an ice berg is under water therefor when the ice melts its overall effect wouldn't raise levels that much as most of the water would be filling the space taken up by the ice. So is it just me that thinks they're scaremongering and exaggerating this threat (even though we'l be dead by then so so what...) ie sure if it happens it will release millions of gallons of water but you're forgetting about the millions of gallons of ice its replacing.

    *nods*

    Indeed. It's pure scaremongering.

    Plus anyone who claims to know what the climate will be like in 100 years really doesn't understand how climate models work.


    Then again tbh, I can barely read newspaper articles on science research and possible consequences.

    If I see "A recent study has shown.." one more time I'll scream.

    *finds a recent study that proves that studys are not able to prove anything*


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    There was a big thread on exactly this topic a few months ago. If you dig around you might be able to find it. I'm too tired right now


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    BTW 6,000 years ago Brittan wasn't an island.

    The oceans have an average depth of 3Km.
    The coefficient of thermal expansion for sea water is about 0.00021 (fractional volume change per degree C)

    To get 30m rise in sea level would require the oceans expand by 0.01 of their current volume (actually more since the area will increase slightly because of flooding)

    The biggest worry about warmer oceans all the way to the bottom would be a release of methane hydrates.


Advertisement