Water level

The trick to the question is if the North Pole or Antarctica is melting. That is because the ice in the North Pole is floating, melting it will actually decrees the water level. Antarctica however has ice anchored to a land mass and in that case the sea level will rise as ice melts. All in all it will probably remain the same assuming the same amount of ice melts at both poles.

Are you sure the water level will go down due to ice melting at the North Pole? The differences between ice and water are that ice is less dense than water, and the ice is primarily fresh water, whereas the water it floats in is salty, which has a higher density than fresh water. As the ice melts, it's volume decreases, but it doesn't decrease to the same density as the surrounding water. The average level of the surface of the earth goes down with melting, since 1/5 of the ice is above the surface of the water. So, do we have a "brick in the boat problem," or do we have a "styrofoam in the boat problem?" It's too early for me to think . . .

I'm assuming that the ice completely melts. If it doesn't you have no change in the water level. I guess you know what happens when you assume.

Whoa! Wait a minute! Are you saying, "If the ice completely melts," the water level (with respect to the land) will go down, but if the ice doesn't completely melt, the water level will stay the same? Such a statement implies that a 50 ton iceberg will have no effect on the water level until it becomes infinitessimaly small, and then, all of a sudden, the water level drops. Either that, or I have grossly misinterpreted what you wrote. By the way, the amount of ice at the South Pole is enough to flood most of the land on earth. If the entire North Pole is indeed floating, and it all melted, then the water level will change very little, leaving out the catastrophic climate changes such a thing would cause. Also, icebergs which fall off of glaciers reduce the weight of the larger ice mass, causing the water level to go down due to the ice mass, but those icebergs fall into the water, causing the water level to rise to its original level within seconds of falling off. I agree with 99.99% of your analyses of problems and comments on other subjects, judging only by what I've read of yours in the last year or two, and this discourse doesn't change my opinion about your intellect or value of your posts, but please, rethink.

Your right, I didn't think everything through thoroughly. Ice displaces as much water as it contains and the sea level would be unchanged. Not sure why I thought that it would lower the see level; I think I was thinking back to a study that has been disproven.
That will teach me to not just fire off a comment without thinking it all the way through. Classic case of brain fry I guess.

Consider the heat input required to do all of this melting. Don't you think that quite a bit of water will be evaporated in the process of melting the ice at the poles?

Sea levels will rise tens of meters. This has been well established. The ice sheets that form over water, like the north pole, are relatively thin as compared to the thick ice sheets that form over land. Land that is currently covered in thick ice sheets are:

Antarctica
Northern Canada
Northern Russia
Greenland

In addition, the flows of low salinity water will disrupt ocean currents as well as disrupt ecosystems. Oh, yeah, there is no avoiding any of this, the climate has shifted too much and the sea levels will be rising steadily for the next couple of centuries. The good news? It won't kill us off or hinder us too much, I expect we will adapt.

The debate on global warming is a joke. Sea levels have been rising for 50 years at least. We are coming off the worst hurricane season on record. 5 of the hottest summers on record for the last 100 years have occurred since 1985. The north atlantic ocean current is acting erratic. Ice sheets the size of Rhode Island are breaking off Antarctica. Algae blooms are huge. Glaciers on every continent are shrinking.

Debating global warming or its well established consequences is like being in a burning building and debating whether the house is really on fire or if the heat is just turned up to high, even as the smoke billows all around you.

A straw man, as everyone knows ;) How much have they risen in the last 50 years? What were the sea levels 3 million years ago? When was the worst huricane season (past 4 billion years)? What was the atmospheric concentration of CO and CO2 when Hannibal led his elephants over the Alps? What was the daily high temperature in the Boston area on Aug 3, 1322? We all insist on control groups, double blind studies, equallity in testing methods and subjects, except when our pet theories are in question. Then suddenly; it's a well known fact, or everyone knows, or my favourite, only a fool would argue with....

I notice your criticism lacks any supporting facts. A sophist is one whom will argue without regards to facts. A sophist believes that as long as there is a .00001% chance of doubt that the fact can be invalidated. A sophist attacks the person, rather than the argument. You are a sophist. Here are the facts. Statistically, we are well out of the standard deviation for climate change and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. How do I know? I bother to read the scientific articles and the papers that tell us this has happened, that ice core samples not to mention tree ring thickness, sea bed deposition, and a multitude of other scientific analysis can provide the very data your hinting is impossible for us to know, and in fact show this.

So despite you incredulity, we know what the CO2 levels were when Scipio Africanus was crushing Hannibal. We have an idea of the yearly high temperature in Boston for the last thousand years. We can guess the sea level changes over the last several thousand years.

There are plenty of things worth debating in science, but this isn't one of them. You're basically debating whether the world is flat. There is no dissention in the scientific community. Global warming is real, sea levels will rise, and what the politicians won't tell you is, there is nothing we can do to prevent it, we can only moderate the damage at this point.

So please, put down your pitchfork and torch and read something. And by read, I don't mean turn on the discovery channel. If this comes off harsh, then next time attack my facts, not me.

Why are you worried about Global Warming? The Avian (Bird) Flu pandemic will reduce urban populations substantially, which, while tragic, will also ease social and economic pressures caused by overpopulation, especially in Third World countries which will not be able to afford or effectively distribute any vaccination that may or may not be developed in time.

Global Warming and a slow rise in sea levels will surely take a back seat to Avian Flu related issues. (I resisted the temptation to use the term "put on the back burner"!)

You guys are debating about whether or not the house is on fire, when you and the house are both standing squarely in the path of a F4 Tornado (Cyclone)!

I'm not worried about global warming. It is happening, we'll survive. I live in the Northeast and don't have any ocean front property.

As for Avian Flu, I'm not old, sick or a child, so I'm not worried. I'm more afraid of cancer, heart disease, and car accidents.

I simply asked questions, I did not make any statements other than "the straw man" comment. I did not attack you personally, in fact, I look forward to your insight on a daily basis. You, however, did attack me personally, claiming that I am a sophist (While a particular bad and insincere argument is likely to be labeled a sophism the practice of using such arguments is known as sophistry. In its modern meaning, "sophistry" is a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.) as I am still waiting for the answers, perhaps the shoe fits you. When I bother to read something other than the National Enquirer, I often follow the money trail to see who paid for the "report" (was that another attack on my person?). When I conduct trials at the facility that I work at, I report what I observed not what I wanted to see (often to the chagrin of my employers). As for facts, you say there is no dissention in the scientific community. Fact, I dissent!as do my collegues, and considering that our sole task at work is to reduce the environmental impact our industry has, you would think we would champion the doom and gloom crowd. Earlier, I said that I look forward to your daily input to this board and that is the truth, so I will say only that I am sorry if I offended, it was not my intent. The correct answer will always be "Yes" or "No", followed by "because"

In my original response, I said that water levels have been rising for 50 years. I said that most ice is found on land, thus countering the original theory that the displacement of water by the melting of ice on the oceans will offset rising water levels.

You responded by calling me a "straw man". A straw man is one who changes the argument in order to win it. I did no such thing in my original post. I merely pointed out the facts regarding water levels, then expanded my response to indicate my frustration that there is still a debate in this country on such a well established consequence of global warming and global warming itself.

The straw man comment was an attack on my character, so please save your spin. You have done nothing in any of your responses to address the water level issue that was originally discussed.

If you don't want me to call you a sophist, then present an argument why water levels indeed aren't rising, or at the very least, why there is some doubt regarding global warming, instead of accusing me of attacking you, and calling me the "doom and gloom crowd" If you don't hold a position on either of these issues, why are you responding?

Here are some links on sealevel rising:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-2754(1990)2% 3A15%3A1%3C5%3ATGECCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARG E/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise/
http://whyfiles.org/091beach/5.html/

Take ol' Occam's razor to the northern polar ice field. The southern continental glacier--most of the world's freshwater reservoir--is on land, above average sea level. Put that glacier in the water--mostly below sea level....less water on land; more water in the oceans; sea levels rise...unless the water goes away.

If the waters rise, building sea walls is not worth it--except to contain cyclone damage--but sea walls require land to support them--but land will be gone... So sea walls are not feasible, probably not possible.

Better idea is to move coastal populations to the big cities with their tall buildings--and enlarge those cities. Convert to land use in which only tall buildings are built as older, low buildings are retired. As water rises, vacate the lower floors of tall buildings. Remove lower story walls and curtain walls as needed. Vacated floors will be "occupied" by the sea--and by flora and fauna in the new, very fertile habitats that are created. Elevate the streets--and convert some to canals--and elevate the fixed transit systems; Wall improvements might work for preserving the subways--but they might need to be abandoned or converted to a different, submarine, utilization--any suggestions???

Convert the heating and cooling plants in the people habitats so as to be able to use the sea water under the people habitats for heating and cooling...and other uses like potable water or...any suggestions....(?). Natural heating and cooling effects might also greatly increase because of changed local weather caused by being over water. Also possible that, for the "coastal" cities, the changed weather patterns caused by water will lessen or eliminate the "dust domes" now present over all cities...cleaner air results(?)

So...no need to abandon (or relocate) the large coastal cities. Only remaining problem is how to do surveys and keep property records. The old and very quaint system presently used in Baltimore City offers a solution to that problem. Persons acquiring "real" property acquire only the improvement and space within, not the land. A similar approach could work for the "land under" the ocean. During their tenancy, property owners (in Baltimore and in our imaginary new old cities) pay "ground rent" for the land upon which their "property" stands.

An entirely new, and yet old and familiar, paradigm.