Hi all,

i am not a scientist or anything so feel free to slaughter my theory...

but when you have a glass of water with a 2 or 3 ice cudes floating on top, when they melt the level of water goes down!

this is becuase the mass volume (or whatever it is) is greater than the water it disperses when melting!!

Would this not be the same for the ice caps???

your thoughts please??

You need to spend more time drinking cocktails in bars. The level of the water in the glass does not go down when the ice melts.

It goes down if you keep drinking from the glass!

Hi guys

thank you for this.

the level of water goes down.. cos when you put ice in your glass it goes up significantly due to the masss of the ice. when the cubes melt the water level goes down.......

check it out yourself?!?!?!?

Zak, are you seriously suggesting that all the top scientists in the world are wrong in their predictions and that you, a non scientist, is correct because of a whim?

Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

Ophiolite is correct - when floating ice melts, the water level is constant. However, not all of the icecaps are floating, some parts are over land. Thus when they melt, the water will run off into the ocean, and the water level will rise.

Zak, are you seriously suggesting that all the top scientists in the world are wrong in their predictions and that you, a non scientist, is correct because of a whim?

Hi tablariddim

Thank you for your post... i hope you are well

no i checked it out by conducting my own experiment... with a glass and ice cubes

Sometimes you dont think of the obvious!!!!

Ophiolite is correct - when floating ice melts, the water level is constant. However, not all of the icecaps are floating, some parts are over land. Thus when they melt, the water will run off into the ocean, and the water level will rise.
oh well i did not think of this... the theory has been proved as bullocks!!!

thanks Geo and i hope you are well.

so that blows this thread out the water!!!!!!!

no i checked it out by conducting my own experiment... with a glass and ice cubes


This cannot be true. A floating object always displaces the eqivalent mass of water to its own mass. If say the icecube is containing air bubbles and has an area larger than its equivalent mass of water it will still displace its equivalant mass in water, thus when it melts it will fill the glass by exactly the same amount it displaced.
Because air has no significant weight in comparison to the h2o, the water level will remain the same. I suggest what you are seeing is a faux water level due to surface viscosity and the close proximity of the icecubes to the glass.

This cannot be true. A floating object always displaces the eqivalent mass of water to its own mass. If say the icecube is containing air bubbles and has an area larger than its equivalent mass of water it will still displace its equivalant mass in water, thus when it melts it will fill the glass by exactly the same amount it displaced.
Because air has no significant weight in comparison to the h2o, the water level will remain the same. I suggest what you are seeing is a faux water level due to surface viscosity and the close proximity of the icecubes to the glass.
hI Implank

thank you for your post and i hoep you are well

the theory is a load of bullocks!!!

i just thoguht i'd start one so i can at least have one thread in the science forum

absolute load of shit, which explains why i was always crap at science when i was at school!!

hI Implank

thank you for your post and i hoep you are well

the theory is a load of bullocks!!!

i just thoguht i'd start one so i can at least have one thread in the science forum

absolute load of shit, which explains why i was always crap at science when i was at school!!
Yeah sorry I didn't intend to rub it in I was just trying to understand why you would observe a lower water line when the ice melted.

absolute load of shit, which explains why i was always crap at science when i was at school!!You do yourself a great disservice.

You set forth a hypothesis.
You tested it experimentally. (Admittedly your experimental results appear to be flawed.)
You submitted it for peer review.
You discarded it once you had been shown it was incorrect.

There are many practising scientists who appear unable to apply that final step. Therefore, sincerely and seriously, well done.

Yeah sorry I didn't intend to rub it in I was just trying to understand why you would observe a lower water line when the ice melted.

i think it was to do with the ice cubes vicinty to the edge of the glass as noted abiove somewhere

I had not taken all thefactors into account

thanks for listening to my load of bullocks,

i would be pleased if you did find it quite amusing though

You do yourself a great disservice.

You set forth a hypothesis.
You tested it experimentally. (Admittedly your experimental results appear to be flawed.)
You submitted it for peer review.
You discarded it once you had been shown it was incorrect.

There are many practising scientists who appear unable to apply that final step. Therefore, sincerely and seriously, well done.
Hummm

you are either patronising me or being nice..

i will take it as being nice thank you...

but i seriously am not worthy of praise when coming out with that bullocks

If people didn't risk coming out with a load of bollocks, science wouldn't be where it is today.

you are either patronising me or being nice..
It was absolutely genuine praise. I don't mess around when attacking people. Though I may use patronising routines on occasion it will be done in conjunction with obvious criticism.

Remember that most ideas that scientists have are bollocks. A handful of ideas stand the test of time, but they can only arise because of all the bollocks that came before them.

There are a number of persons, supposedly educated in the sciences, on this forum who should emulate your approach.

Regards,
O.

Edit: I just noticed my second last paragraph echoes Imaplank's post.

You do yourself a great disservice.

You set forth a hypothesis.
You tested it experimentally. (Admittedly your experimental results appear to be flawed.)
You submitted it for peer review.
You discarded it once you had been shown it was incorrect.

There are many practising scientists who appear unable to apply that final step. Therefore, sincerely and seriously, well done.

WOW - Ophiolite !!!!!!
After reading some of your previous posts , I just thought ,you were an angry old man , burping acid on everybody else here on Sciforums ......
Your post here actually reveals, that you are a homo sapiens - with a fully functioning brain - capable of insight, analyzing skills and perfect logic .....
I might just have to review my impression of you .......

:)

lapis philosophorum

WOW - Ophiolite !!!!!!
After reading some of your previous posts , I just thought ,you were an angry old man , burping acid on everybody else here on Sciforums We all need a hobby. :cool:

If you examine those posts, and their antecedents, with care you may reach the conclusion that I generally attack the pretentious, the deliberately ignorant, the prejudiced, the thoughtless, and those native English speakers whose spelling or grammar is substandard. Since a knee injury curtailed my ability to mug old ladies this is the only pleasure I get. :(

Glaciers march to sea and dump ice into the sea all the time. I think that higher temperatures cause more seawater to evaporate and more snow to fall on glaciers, building their mass faster.

Since a knee injury curtailed my ability to mug old ladies this is the only pleasure I get. :(

LOL .... :p

I am glad I touched you - you will be turned into gold now ofcourse ......
You bloody official Sciforums acid burper ;)

It was absolutely genuine praise. I don't mess around when attacking people. Though I may use patronising routines on occasion it will be done in conjunction with obvious criticism.

Remember that most ideas that scientists have are bollocks. A handful of ideas stand the test of time, but they can only arise because of all the bollocks that came before them.

There are a number of persons, supposedly educated in the sciences, on this forum who should emulate your approach.

Regards,
O.

Edit: I just noticed my second last paragraph echoes Imaplank's post.
thank you Opholite for your kind words/

but dont encourage me to much i may just come out with a few more!!
Take care....

Glaciers march to sea and dump ice into the sea all the time. I think that higher temperatures cause more seawater to evaporate and more snow to fall on glaciers, building their mass faster.Oh thank you. Somebody figured it out. Global warming will not raise sea level by melting the icebergs that are floating in the water. It will do it by melting the glaciers that are currently resting on the land. All of that liquid water will flow into the sea and create more sea.

When temperatures cool, snow falls on land and does not melt. This transfers water from the sea to the land.

An interesting variation in Zak's experiment arises when ice lollies are used in place of "pure" ice. Observers will notice that the water slowly changes in color and also in taste.

If we imagine this revised experiment enacted on an oceanic scale there would be implications for creatures inhabiting the marine environment. [1] Visibility would be reduced, inhibiting the ability of predators to hunt, and increasing the net quantity of fish. [2] The ocean would become tastier, increasing the amount of liquid ingested by sea creatures, enlarging their bulk.

Both of these factors would be beneficial to the world's fishing fleets, enabling the catch of fish to be both more numerous and greater in tonnage. The loss of output from agricultural land engulfed by rising oceans would be offset.

I think the policy implications for the Icelandic government are obvious.

Do you feell they would make loads of lolly out of loads of lolly?

If you put ice cubes in a glass of coke. Over time the coke will taste like diet coke, which means increase in volume of water. I think scientists are correct about ice caps

I actually did the math and figured out that if Antarctica melted away, the oceans would rise 215 feet.

According to other resources, they get the same figure.

Most of the worlds ice, like 90% of it, is actually on land. So when it melts and runs into the oceans it will raise sea level.

Infact a ice cap doesn't need to melt, they could potentially break up and slide into the ocean, as happend with the larsen ice shelf in 2002.

>> Glaciers march to sea and dump ice into the sea all the time. I think that higher temperatures cause more seawater to evaporate and more snow to fall on glaciers, building their mass faster. >>

That is the "Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse" logic.

But increased evaporation is not happening, as shown by declining rain fall.
All the released fresh water is going to the sea, where it is being locked under the layer of oil.

Consequently, global warming becomes global cooling....and ice ages are coming.

The Ice caps are not resting on the ocean they are sitting on land!

The Ice caps are not resting on the ocean they are sitting on land!
Hi kendall

i hope you are well

do yoi have to carry on with my humilation?!?!!!!????????!!!!!!!!!!!


#####
take care
zak

...do yoi have to carry on with my humilation?!?!!!!????????!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi ZAK

I hope you are well

In the interest of kindness, and because of your post here, I have deleted my early sarcastic post announcing my "brilliant” parallel discovery.

Maybe it's different with salt water, but I thought distilled ice is less dense than distilled water. Which would mean that a given mass of distilled water takes up less space than distilled ice, meaning Zak was correct in his experiment, even though he was wrong in his conclusions. Water is an exception to the tendency of substances to get less dense as they become gasses. Someone (don't remember who) said that because ice displaces an equal mass of water when it's floating in water, the water levels stay the same when it melts. But this is not true; ice displaces an equal VOLUME of water. But when a given volume of ice melts, it becomes a smaller volume of water of equal mass. The reason this is irrelevent (or not terribly important, anyway) to the ice caps is that many are on land, as so many people have said.

If I'm just an idiot and that premise is wrong, tell me, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

A floating object displaces an equal mass, not an equal volume. We know this courtesy of Archimedes and his eureka moment. (If it displaced an equal volume then a ship made of solid steel would float. Experience shows this is not the case.)

Are you saying that if I drop a 1 cubic centimeter piece of lead into a glass of water it will displace 11 mL? A 1 cubic centimeter piece of lead should be about 11 g, so to displace 11 g of water (equal mass) it would have to displace 11 mL (water is 1 g/mL and 1 mL = 1 cm^3.) But actually, it will displace ONE mL of water.

I don't see why displacing equal volume means a steel ship would float. It does not float because it denser than water, and no other reason.

I sense some ownage coming up (to myself, that is.) But I still don't see how I'm wrong.

edit: "Eureka ('Eureka!', or 'Heureka'; Greek ηὕρηκα (later εὕρηκα); IPA: [ˈevrika] (modern Greek), /ˈheʷreːka/ (ancient Greek, both former and later forms), Anglicised as /juːˈriːkə/) is a famous exclamation attributed to Archimedes. He reportedly uttered the word when he suddenly understood that the volume of an irregular object could be calculated by finding the volume of water displaced when the object was submerged in water, subsequently leaping out of his bathtub and running through the streets of Syracuse naked." -Wikipedia. Note "understood that the volume of an irregular object could be calculated by finding the volume of water displaced"

Take a ship shape, made of steel. Place it in water. It sinks until it has displaced its own weight of water. If it were not hollow, but solid steel it would sink. Why? Because even when totally submerged it would not be able to displace its own weight.

Are you saying that if I drop a 1 cubic centimeter piece of lead into a glass of water it will displace 11 mL? A 1 cubic centimeter piece of lead should be about 11 g, so to displace 11 g of water (equal mass) it would have to displace 11 mL (water is 1 g/mL and 1 mL = 1 cm^3.) But actually, it will displace ONE mL of water.


No. It would need to displace 11 mL of water in order to float. Since it is unable to do so because of its shape, it sinks.

Okay, I see. Thank you invert_nexus. A sunken object displaces equal volume, then, correct?