Re: Chez Watt: There can be no Evolution by natural selection DJT

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:19:29 -0700, Ken Shackleton
<ken.shackleton@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 21, 8:09 pm, the heekster <heeks...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:15:58 -0700, Harry K <turnkey4...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Oct 20, 6:28 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 20, 5:37 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <1192817121.229225.42...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Harry
K <turnkey4...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes

On Oct 19, 10:21 am, John Vreeland <vreej...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:54:18 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx>
opined:

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:10:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kent Paul Dolan
<xanth...@xxxxxxxx>:

File under "Anti-Eureka!":

OK I believe that also, but if Ice
shrinks when it melts the sea level
will become lower when the Ice shrinks.
hot higher..

Ye chaos, that such stupidity can even
support respiration...

I'd guess Archimedes is up to about 3000rpm by now...

I heard that Rush Limbaugh made this claim on the air, once.

For the record, when fresh-water ice (pack ice is fresh) melts in salt
water, the water level rises. Of course, most ice is land-locked,
anyway, so there is no question of its raising sea level when it
melts. And then, of course, the fact that warming water expands...

But if we want to indulge in exploring ephemera, how about the fact
that increased world-wide prosperity will result in more boats being
in the water, which can only result in more water being displaced?

Why is this cross-posted to misc.misc? deleted.
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one
of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com

See discussion with Ken Shackleton. Logic says that the level won't
change as the cube displaces enough salt water to balance the mass of
fresh water contained in the ice. Same happens after the cube melts.

I am setting up an experiment to try but would like a cite if there is
one.

Harry K

A thought experiment -

Consider a hundred square miles of ice of uniform thickness floating on
the ocean, coated by a rigid covering of negligible mass. The surface of
the ice is above that of the ocean, due its lower density. Then
instantly turn the ice to fresh water. Because its still of lower
density than the ocean, and is constrained from flowing away, the
surface of the fresh water is still above that of the ocean, although
lower than that of the ice. Finally remove the coating. The freshwater
will flow outwards raising the surface of the surrounding ocean.
--
alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ice floats with almost all of its mass under water. This a a rather
wierd way to look at it but it is accurate as to the result: The melt
water exactly fills the hole the ice occupied prior to melting. That
is true no matter what the ice is floating in.

Try doing the experiment.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

After rethinking that, the light dawned. Pictured cube floating in/on
mercury. Yep, the level rises.

Harry K

Consider that ice is about 8% less dense than water. For a freshwater
iceberg, and salt water, that difference is probably about 13% less
dense. This means that the berg will float higher in the water.

When it melts, it should fill the volume it displaced.

By your own numbers, there will be 5% left over once the "hole"
displaced by the iceberg is filled by meltwater.


Well, maybe so, but icebergs are even less dense than an ice cube,
because 'bergs have a lot of air trapped in them, along with whatever
junk the the glacier scraped up on its way to the iceberg calving
area. And how much surface area is this 5% supposed to cover? The
earth has a surface area covered by water of about 139,000,000 square
miles, IIRC.

The original thought experiment called for melting 100 square miles of
ice in a rigid covering of negligible mass. The idea was that the
less dense freshwater would float upon the top of the salt water, and
when released would raise the level of the surrounding ocean. The
flaw in the experiment here, is that the displacement caused by the
weight of the ice on the salt water, and the level increase from that,
is ignored. That is to say, the experiment isn't quite correct in its
setup.

There are 3 minimal measurements that must be made.
You must have a baseline intial ocean level,
then the level with the 100 sqmi iceberg in it,
then the level after the ice has melted, and been released.

What would likely happen is the fresh water surface would increase to
more than the 100 square miles, and evaporation, coupled with mixing
of the fresh and salt water, would likely make any ocean level
increase negligible.

Even a 100 square mile iceberg is just 0.0000007 % of the total water
surface area, which probably makes it insignificant.

One concern that many people have with regard to the melting of the
Arctic Ice Cap is the eventual flooding of the land masses. What is
commonly misunderstood is that the Arctic Ice Cap is relatively thin,
about 10 feet thick on average. And about 90 % of that is already
displacing the water (taking up space that would otherwise be occupied
by water). Thus, even a complete melting of the Arctic Ice Cap would
only result in a small increase in sea water level.

Antarctica OTOH, contains 70% of Earth's fresh water and 90% of
Earth's ice. The average ice thickness is 1.5 miles, reaching 3 miles
deep in some regions.

Bottom line, is that about 90% of the increase in the water level
comes from the objects initial displacement, when it first enters the
water.

Any errors in the above, I blame on my current full blown sinus
infection. ;)

The ocean level should not change.

Once the iceberg has broken off the glacier into the ocean, it has
displaced all the water it will ever displace, regardless of whether
it is in a solid or liquid state.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Loading