We're doomed

Old Jul 12th 2017, 5:47 pm
  #16  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,459
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Novocastrian
BTW, this (for once) has little or nothing to do with climate change. This sort of thing has always happened at irregular intervals. And because the Larssen C is an ice-shalf, which floats, the broken off bit won't affect sea-levels when it melts.\
If/when it melts, why wouldn't it effect sea levels??
Shard is offline  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 6:10 pm
  #17  
Magnificently Withering
 
Oakvillian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Oakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Shard
If/when it melts, why wouldn't it effect sea levels??
Archimedes' principle, innit? A floating body displaces a volume of water of equal mass to that of the floating body itself. If the ice melts, the volume of the resulting meltwater is exactly the same as the submerged volume of the iceberg.

Meltwater from land-based glaciers will raise sea levels - and the Larsen ice shelf constrains and restrains several glaciers, so as a consequence of the collapse of the ice shelf there will ultimately be changes in sea level from increased flow rates of glaciers, but in and of itself, the melting of a sea-borne ice shelf will not directly affect sea level.

Last edited by Oakvillian; Jul 12th 2017 at 6:14 pm.
Oakvillian is offline  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 6:18 pm
  #18  
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
 
BristolUK's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,536
BristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Oakvillian
Archimedes' principle, innit? A floating body displaces a volume of water of equal mass to that of the floating body itself...
This was my version...close enough.

Originally Posted by Shard
If/when it melts, why wouldn't it effect sea levels??
I can't remember how much of ice is below the surface but in terms of breaking off, I assume the bigger bit weighs less so displaces less water than it did and this equals the displacement from the broken off bit.

In terms of melting into the see, I guess it's a reversal of the expansion of water into ice so the bulk of the ice reduces so it's maybe the same volume of melted ice as the solid ice originally beneath the surface.

That's my non scientific theory.
BristolUK is offline  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 7:05 pm
  #19  
Born again atheist
 
Novocastrian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Novocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Oakvillian
Archimedes' principle, innit? A floating body displaces a volume of water of equal mass to that of the floating body itself. If the ice melts, the volume of the resulting meltwater is exactly the same as the submerged volume of the iceberg.
Eureka.
Novocastrian is offline  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 7:12 pm
  #20  
Listen to the Music
 
dave_j's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Fraser Valley BC
Posts: 4,649
dave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by BristolUK
I can't remember how much of ice is below the surface but in terms of breaking off, I assume the bigger bit weighs less so displaces less water than it did and this equals the displacement from the broken off bit.
Not so. If all of the shelf is freely floating then each unit area of the shelf will displace the mass of water equal to the mass of a column of ice formed using the unit area as a cross section (curvature of the earth included). There will however be local variations and some parts will be machanically supported above where it should float and other parts will be pushed down below where it should float but where areas of the size of this berg are concerned these local variations become meaningless.
dave_j is online now  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 7:16 pm
  #21  
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
 
BristolUK's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,536
BristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

@dave_j

African or European swallow?
BristolUK is offline  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 7:19 pm
  #22  
Born again atheist
 
Novocastrian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Novocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond reputeNovocastrian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by dave_j
Not so. If all of the shelf is freely floating then each unit area of the shelf will displace the mass of water equal to the mass of a column of ice formed using the unit area as a cross section (curvature of the earth included). There will however be local variations and some parts will be machanically supported above where it should float and other parts will be pushed down below where it should float but where areas of the size of this berg are concerned these local variations become meaningless.
Eh?
Novocastrian is offline  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 9:06 pm
  #23  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,840
Former Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond reputeFormer Lancastrian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Novocastrian
Eh?
Still haven't lost the Canadian accent eh.
Former Lancastrian is offline  
Old Jul 12th 2017, 11:16 pm
  #24  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,014
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

A facebook friend advises that it's the size of Delaware.
dbd33 is offline  
Old Jul 13th 2017, 1:19 am
  #25  
BE Forum Addict
 
Teaandtoday5's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,336
Teaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond reputeTeaandtoday5 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by dbd33
A facebook friend advises that it's the size of Delaware.
This is the most educational thread ever. Yes I had to google Delaware, but at least I know where it is now (presumably where it's always been). And it must also be 1/4 the size of Wales. I wouldn't take that as mathematically reliable, (but probably Oakvillian could check my working ).

Last edited by Teaandtoday5; Jul 13th 2017 at 1:36 am. Reason: Stray bracket.
Teaandtoday5 is offline  
Old Jul 13th 2017, 2:52 am
  #26  
Pretty Fly For A Whiteguy
 
Mr Bean's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Barrie, Ontario(formerly Penperlleni, Cymru)
Posts: 570
Mr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond reputeMr Bean has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Keep this one going, please.

I've just got off my the phone with my friend from the flat earth society.
Mr Bean is offline  
Old Jul 13th 2017, 8:44 am
  #27  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,459
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Oakvillian
Archimedes' principle, innit? A floating body displaces a volume of water of equal mass to that of the floating body itself. If the ice melts, the volume of the resulting meltwater is exactly the same as the submerged volume of the iceberg.
Not sure if old Archy considered the mass of water above the surface or not? I appreciate that the size of broken off ice relative to the planet is, shall we say, a drop in the ocean, but it does still seem as though that above surface melt water would raise sea levels? Perhaps I'll need to do some research with some, gin, tonic and ice cubes tonight?!
Shard is offline  
Old Jul 13th 2017, 9:19 am
  #28  
Lowering the tone
 
Jingsamichty's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 7,336
Jingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Shard
Not sure if old Archy considered the mass of water above the surface or not? I appreciate that the size of broken off ice relative to the planet is, shall we say, a drop in the ocean, but it does still seem as though that above surface melt water would raise sea levels? Perhaps I'll need to do some research with some, gin, tonic and ice cubes tonight?!
The bit above the water is balanced by the lower density of the ice as a whole compared to the water.

100m3 of water = 110m3 ice = 100tonne. The mass is the same, only the volume and density is different and they cancel each other out.
Jingsamichty is offline  
Old Jul 13th 2017, 12:18 pm
  #29  
Oscar nominated
Thread Starter
 
BristolUK's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,536
BristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Teaandtoday5
...I had to google Delaware...
It sounds like equipment - pots and pans? In fact if one added an I - but it would have to be a small i - you'd have Deliaware.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
The bit above the water is balanced by the lower density of the ice as a whole compared to the water.

100m3 of water = 110m3 ice = 100tonne. The mass is the same, only the volume and density is different and they cancel each other out.
That sounds remarkably similar to my non scientific bit upthread.
BristolUK is offline  
Old Jul 13th 2017, 3:09 pm
  #30  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,459
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: We're doomed

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
The bit above the water is balanced by the lower density of the ice as a whole compared to the water.

100m3 of water = 110m3 ice = 100tonne. The mass is the same, only the volume and density is different and they cancel each other out.
I'm not questioning the mass, but the change in liquid volume in a fixed space. In any case, a highly scientific experiment is currently underway (chez Shard) to test this out. Fear not, no whiskey will be wasted as a result of this endeavor.

--

Ok ok. Experiment over. We're not doomed. My error

Nobel prizes to Oak, Novo, Bristol, Jings and Archimedes.

Last edited by Shard; Jul 13th 2017 at 3:43 pm. Reason: Closure of aperture
Shard is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.