Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels … in about 1,000 years

posted at 5:46 pm on May 14, 2014 by Bruce McQuain

The cult of global warming, aka “alarmists”,  have found a new drum on which to bang.  Scientists recently announced that the western ice shelf in Antarctica is “collapsing”.  Immediately the “Chicken Little” pronouncements of imminent doom were sounded by the usual suspects with all of it linked implicitly to AGW.  The UK’s Guardian sounded the alarm in various headlines which read:

“Two separate studies confirm loss of ice sheet is inevitable, and will cause up to 4m of additional sea-level rise

‘Collapse will change the coastline of the whole world’

Reading on into the actual findings of the studies, however, one finds that the drama that is implicit in these headlines could have been tempered a bit with a very slight modification:

But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away.

Oh.  So it isn’t a crisis that will impact the world today or anytime in the near future, correct?

This is not new stuff either. This story has been popping up since 2008. I wrote about it here and here. As noted in 2008, a fairly simple discovery, not mentioned in any of these articles, proffered an explanation of why the ocean water was warming and the ice shelf in question then was melting.

“Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that “creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea”. That could include the Wilkins Ice Sheet as well (the article cited talks about the Larson A and B sheets.

But, say the alarmists, we’re not talking about Wilkins or the Larson sheets. We’re talking about the Thwaites glacier.

The study honed in on the Thwaites glacier – a broad glacier that is part of the Amundsen Sea. Scientists have known for years that the Thwaites glacier is the soft underbelly of the Antarctic ice sheet, and first found that it was unstable decades ago.

The University of Washington researchers said that the fast-moving Thwaites glacier could be lost in a matter of centuries. The loss of that glacier alone would raise global sea level by nearly 2ft.

Thwaites also acts as a dam that holds back the rest of the ice sheet. Once Thwaites goes, researchers said, the remaining ice in the sheet could cause another 10 to 13ft (3-4m) of global sea-level rise.

Ok. Well, let’s look at a couple of pictures then. The first is from the 2008 post I did on the volcano:

volcano

 

The second picture, from the Guardian article, shows the area of the study.  The red dot is the glacier in question:

glacier

 

Does anyone notice anything interesting?  Yes, that’s right, the glacier in question, is in the vicinity of the volcano in question.  And I don’t think anyone would argue that a undersea volcano can’t heat up the sea in the vicinity to a little higher temperature than it would be normally.  Has it had an effect?  Who knows … it doesn’t appear to have been mentioned at all in the study.  But, if you go to the Guardian article you’ll see an embedded 17 second video that attempts to explain the effect of the warmer water on the glacier.  It shows less dense (and therefore lighter) warm water somehow flowing under much denser and therefore heavier cold water to destabilize the glacier.  The only reasonable explanation for such a flow would be if the heat source were somewhere near the bottom of the ocean, no?  Otherwise its hard to explain how that warm water got below the cold water and stayed there.

But if you question things like this, you’re an ignorant nincompoop.  A “denier”, which, by the way is akin to being a member of the KKK and a Holocaust denier all in one.  However, I’m certainly not denying that something is happening in Antarctica.  I am questioning the purported cause though.  It isn’t at all unimaginable that the side of Antarctica most exposed to warmer South Pacific sea currents and experiencing volcanic activity might see some melting due to causes unrelated to CO2 put in the atmosphere by man.

That, of course, won’t stop the cultist from declaring themselves to be the ones with science on their side and deniers to be the fact-challenged among us.  Here’s a perfect example of that phenomenon from today’s NYT:

But the unfortunate fact about uncertainty is that the error bars always go in both directions. While it is possible that the problem could turn out to be less serious than the consensus forecast, it is equally likely to turn out to be more serious. In fact, it increasingly appears that, if there is any systemic bias in the climate models, it’s that they understate the gravity of the situation. In an interesting paper that appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change, a group of scholars, including Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard, and Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton, note that so-called climate skeptics frequently accuse climate scientists of “alarmism” and “overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system.” But, when you actually measure the predictions that climate scientists have made against observations of how the climate has already changed, you find the exact opposite: a pattern “of under- rather than over-prediction” emerges.

Really?  If that’s the case, that should be pretty easy to demonstrate, shouldn’t it? Since pictures are worth 1,000 words, here’s a little picture I picked up over at The Federalist that does exactly that – it demonstrates that the pattern of the climate models is exactly as the “deniers” have claimed they are:

Climate-Model-Comparison-1024x921

Somehow, the claimant from the NYT couldn’t be bothered to actually fact check.  Instead she swallowed whole the alarmist line and regurgitated it with the usual ignorant literary smirk found in most of their fact free writing.

Sean Davis sums up the argument for most “deniers” very well:

I have a simple rule when it comes to people who want me to invest obscene sums of money in their forecasts of discrete future events: just be accurate. If you come to me and tell me you can predict future stock market performance based on these five factors, then you had better predict future stock market performance based on those five factors. All you have to do is be correct, over and over again. But if your predictive model is wrong, I’m not going to give you any money, and I’m certainly not going to pretend that what you just did is science. Any idiot can make incorrect guesses about the future.

Science, properly practiced, is the search for truth. Science, properly practiced, rejects forecasting models that consistently produce inaccurate forecasts. There’s nothing scientific about shouting down anyone who has the audacity to point out that the only thing your model can accurately predict is what the temperature won’t be.

Indeed.

~McQ


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Hot Schadenfreude

Bmore on May 14, 2014 at 7:30 PM

i’ve read most of the Science article. Vast quantities of ice. The glacier rests on silt 600m below sea level (at its grounding point)…and there is a marine basin that is more than 1200m bsl. All this is just one area of Antarctica.

all done via satellite remote sensing. So cool, the science.

So distressing that the climatistas have a certain, well, thug streak in them

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

this guy was going to have a major position at Max Planck institute…but who knows now..

a very long post, with lots of details and quotes here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/

a Dark Age awaits, if we chose

r keller on May 14, 2014 at 7:30 PM

An ice shelf.

The edge of a glacier, on water.

Breaks off.

Do you know what is behind that?

More glacier.

WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM GLOBAL WARMING!

Uh-huh.

Stand right there and I’ll call the guys with the butterfly nets as anyone saying this stuff is buggy as all get-out.

ajacksonian on May 14, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Seriously, what else would you have the filthy traitor do?
Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 5:55 PM

He could FOAD.

#KuckFerry

#BuckFarack

Nutstuyu on May 14, 2014 at 7:31 PM

a 55 gallon drum of KY jelly.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:19 PM

,
If you’re including KY jelly in the plan, you’re just going to get them excited.

;->

PolAgnostic on May 14, 2014 at 7:34 PM

If you’re including KY jelly in the plan, you’re just going to get them excited.

;->

PolAgnostic on May 14, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Well I might have forgotten that the cattle prod is powered from a 4160 Volt breaker….and goes to 11 :-)

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels … in about 1,000 years

If it continues on its present course, instead of partially or completely reversing, and if the Artic ice doesn’t extend and keep everything balanced, and if the Antarctice ice shelf doesn’t extend in a different direction, which already appears to be happening, and if nothing else changes….

…. then we might have something to worry about 3 or 4 centuries from now.

But we’ll probably be too busy worrying about the coming ice age by that time.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM

The worst part is that the Antarctic ice sheet is covering more territory than it has since we began keeping records of it.

And the Arctic ice pack now goes further south in the Bering Sea, earlier than it has since any sailor’s great grandfather can remember.

Welcome to global warming!

Soon the great continental ice sheets will reappear and we will be the warmest we ever have been according the AGW death cult.

ajacksonian on May 14, 2014 at 7:40 PM

I have a few suggestions but I’d be banned if I posted them here. I will tell you though that one particular favorite of mine involves Kerry, Jane Fonda, a cattle prod and a 55 gallon drum of KY jelly.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:19 PM

I like your way of thinking. :0

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Did these so called scientist think to factor in the square root of the aurora borealis? That could really change the time line.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:50 PM

oscarwilde on May 14, 2014 at 6:56 P

M

Not mass, displacement.

An ice cube displaces as much water as the ice cube would if it was not frozen water.

Basic ninth grade physical science experiment.

cozmo on May 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM

It’s a little bit more complicated than that. Basically water is at its densest a few degrees above freezing — 4 degrees Celsius, or about 40 degrees Fahrenheit, unlike every other liquid on the planet that is densest as it freezes, and becomes a solid.

So as the ice melts, it becomes more dense. As it warms up from there above 40 degrees, it can gradually become less dense and take up more volume. But that only really happens after ALL the ice is melted.

What this means is that the water level should stay the same until all ice is gone, and until the water temperature goes above 40 degrees. Only then will warming water actually mean greater water volume, and therefore a rising water level.

It’s fascinating how the properties of water as it freezes and melts leads to greater stabilization of the environment.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM

What this means is that the water level should stay the same until all ice is gone, and until the water temperature goes above 40 degrees. Only then will warming water actually mean greater water volume, and therefore a rising water level.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Yeah, but what if anthropologic misogyzinsm negatively affects the latent heat of vulgarism and inseverts the cow flatulence factor? How about then? What affect would that have? Don’t tell me the seal level won’t rise then. The only answer now is to kill all the whales before it’s too late. It’s for the children.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 8:03 PM

the ice sheet broke off because glaciers move and i’ll bet in a few years that ice will be replace. It’s amazing how people could be so easily hoodwinked. Global warming is a hoax.

pjmel on May 14, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Why doesn’t one of these bottle water companies get a couple ships and tow the ice sheet back to there factory and bottle it.

pjmel on May 14, 2014 at 8:10 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Well, geeze, we could make it really complicated and add in the differences in density between salt water (ocean) and fresh water (glacial ice). Or the trash that is in the glacier.

Then we could get into crust rebound after the glacier is gone and how that will affect the water level.

The geology of the planet is just as complicated as the climate of the planet. Except the geology has a record and not even Michael Mann get get that record to lie.

cozmo on May 14, 2014 at 8:12 PM

pjmel on May 14, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Depending on your definition of “a few years” I would safely take that bet. Glaciers are cyclical, but in a geologic time frame.

cozmo on May 14, 2014 at 8:15 PM

“Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that “creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea”. That could include the Wilkins Ice Sheet as well (the article cited talks about the Larson A and B sheets.

Obviously, we need to bomb the volcano, or institute a universal tax for volcano abatement programs.

Or both.

BobMbx on May 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM

All of the time? na, how about just once in a damned while?

oscarwilde on May 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM

They have to be right once in order to be right once in a while.

They can’t get past the being right once thing.

Spliff Menendez on May 14, 2014 at 8:52 PM

…so we’ll have ice…for our drinks?

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Did these so called scientist think to factor in the square root of the aurora borealis? That could really change the time line.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:50 PM

You should read my paper that proves that Pi is equal to 2. Exactly.

BobMbx on May 14, 2014 at 8:56 PM

The geology of the planet is just as complicated as the climate of the planet. Except the geology has a record and not even Michael Mann get get that record to lie.

cozmo on May 14, 2014 at 8:12 PM

“Hide the Jurassic”. I’ll make that the subject of a NSF grant application. It’ll be worth millions.

BobMbx on May 14, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Well I might have forgotten that the cattle prod is powered from a 4160 Volt breaker….and goes to 11 :-)

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM

.
In that case, let’s have TWO cattle prods and make this a duet!

PolAgnostic on May 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Ice in water is typically about 90% submerged. And when water freezes it expands by about 10%. Put the two together and the water level changes by… “let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin’. Carry the nothin’…”

tommytom02 on May 14, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Paging oakland, oakland you’re needed.

CW on May 14, 2014 at 9:25 PM

Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels … in about 1,000 years

Will that be before or after the start of the next Ice Age?

farsighted on May 14, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Well,………that would explain why it was melting from beneath.

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 9:36 PM

it is equally likely to turn out to be more serious.

No, actually, that part isn’t true. Statistically.

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Allow me a moment to start the debunk

1) The Ice Shelf is growing currently, due to pressure from the mainland Antarctica which is also growing.

2) The amount of water indicated would be really tremendous if it was to actually cause an increase in the levels. The total area of the Earth is approximately 510 million square kilometers and the oceans cover about 71 percent of the Earth’s surface, which is about 360 million square kilometers. This is about 223.694 million square miles.

So at 7.48 gallons per 1×1 foot this would mean roughly (223,694,000*5280*2*7.48)= 17,669,320,627,200 gallons of water in that ice, to cover the oceans in 2 feet of water. Now ice freezes to smaller space, filling roughly 91.7% of the space. So to make an iceberg work it would need to be 16202767015142.4 square feet, or an area of 581,194 square miles. The area of Antartica is 5.405 million sq miles. So they are proposing 10% of the mass of this is going to drop… oh wait not 10%, my figure is in SQUARE MILES, mile deep… hmm, so they are proposing an area equal to 40% of the size of Antarctica is going to drop into the ocean a thousand years from now

3) This is of course claiming ocean currents are eating at the ice, which there is some of occurring, but on this scale? HAHAHAHA.

4) If this nightmare scenario happened it would also mean a lot of land being flooded, due to a higher amount of easily evaporated water (salt slows evaporation in ratio) and thus more land flooding by far… except clouds reflect sunlight… oops a flaw in the model!

But this is not serious stuff, it is headline grabbing, cover our arses, and make it so in our academic lifetimes there is no chance of this coming to bite us in the backside sort of stuff.

OregonPolitician on May 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM

This is all quite easy to explain for all of us non-savvy hicks. The aliens, Sally, I think it was, made the decision to come to earth to suck our water.

But it takes energy for interstellar travel…….duh.

So which has more value to them? Warm water? Or cold?

Right!!!! You can’t launch a dodecahedron for just ice or cold water. Mission won’t pay for itself.

They are the ones hiding the decline. NOT AL Gore!

I am a convert.

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Quote from Mr. McQuain (see above)

I am questioning the purported cause though. It isn’t at all unimaginable that the side of Antarctica most exposed to warmer South Pacific sea currents and experiencing volcanic activity might see some melting due to causes unrelated to CO2 put in the atmosphere by man.

Quote from the Guardian article to which Mr. McQuain extensively refers:

Scientists are also finding that the causes of the ice loss are highly complex – and that it is not just due to warmer temperatures causing surface melting of the ice.

Comprehension problem, Mr. McQuain?

oakland on May 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM

I guess the guess the last ice age receded 10000 years ago giving us the great lakes and the largest bodies of fresh water in the world was a bad thing. Climate change happens. Get used to it

jaywemm on May 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM

I like how people think they can sit on their couches and dispute scientific findings.
I think climate change is real, I just don’t support it being used to tax me.

weedisgood on May 14, 2014 at 5:54 PM

The Sahara started 7000 years ago. Run with it. (there’s a 7-11 in there with doritos somewhere.) Seriously.

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 10:00 PM

oakland on May 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM

What have you done TODAY to fight this terrible malady that will destroy humanity if not managed properly by the men in white coats?

Murphy9 on May 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Your volcano explanation doesn’t work. There’s no evidence that the Antarctic volcanic activity has increased recently, while there is plenty of evidence that the melt rate has. Furthermore, volcanos and glaciers can co-exist: just ask Iceland. Volcanos are accounted for in the analysis of the ice sheets. What we’re seeing is way beyond what they are capable of.

Hal_10000 on May 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Hal_10000 on May 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Oh, do tell…

Newtie and the Beauty on May 14, 2014 at 10:09 PM

ajacksonian,

The worst part is that the Antarctic ice sheet is covering more territory than it has since we began keeping records of it.

And the Arctic ice pack now goes further south in the Bering Sea, earlier than it has since any sailor’s great grandfather can remember.

Welcome to global warming!

The mercury could dip below 49 F tonight in the Houston area tonight. If it does, it will be the coldest recorded temperature on this date since 1890.

But global warming/climate change/climate chaos is going to kill us all.

Mike Honcho on May 14, 2014 at 10:10 PM

CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant that will kill us all.

Murphy9 on May 14, 2014 at 10:13 PM

You should read my paper that proves that Pi is equal to 2. Exactly.

BobMbx on May 14, 2014 at 8:56 PM

You jest but read down to #6 on this link.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Well I might have forgotten that the cattle prod is powered from a 4160 Volt breaker….and goes to 11 :-)

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM

.
In that case, let’s have TWO cattle prods and make this a duet!

PolAgnostic on May 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM

That might endanger the horny porcupines that will be in the cage with them.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Ah, Nature at it’s finest. Humans cannot even anticipate or control an earthquake or a volcano, or even the precise movement of the oceans and atmosphere. Yet humans can forecast and/or dictate (Earth’s) Nature’s course? We are seeing (living) what human intelligence can achieve. And Nature WILL dictate humanity’s course.

Netclimber on May 14, 2014 at 10:35 PM

a Dark Age awaits, if we chose suckers

r keller on May 14, 2014 at 7:30 PM

FIFY

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 11:13 PM

OregonPolitician on May 14, 2014 at 9:45 PM

HEY!!!! STFU. Pagan Pryck. Go buy a carry-all or something, apostaste!

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 11:19 PM

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Damn. You know. They are lying to help stop an alien invasion. If we just cool earth’s water (everywhere) to say, 34 degrees, FARENHEIT (for everyone else) we can stave off a world apocalypse.

Morons. Stop f’n it up!

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 11:26 PM

apostaste!

preferably Limoncello.

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 11:27 PM

While it is possible that the problem could turn out to be less serious than the consensus forecast, it is equally likely to turn out to be more serious.

Not true. Not true at all.

What the error bars tell you is that any line you draw between them has the same probability of occurrence. You could scribble any squiggle you want between the bars (as long as you don’t backtrack) and it would be as equally likely as any other line that you care to draw between them.

Also, as your forecast gets further into the future from your actually measured data, the error bars get wider and wider apart, and they do so very quickly. (Think of the bell on a tuba.) After a very short ‘forecast’ pretty much any and every outcome is equally possible.

ss396 on May 14, 2014 at 11:29 PM

What have you done TODAY to fight this terrible malady that will destroy humanity if not managed properly by the men in white coats?

Murphy9 on May 14, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Ate a spider, and shut up. What more could you ask?????

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM

So again, one last (oh, c’mon who are we kidding) time, I ask you, go to weather.com. check the monthly averages. At the bottom, left graph depicts month to date temperatures. Look at it closely.

Then check several other locales.

Then ask yourself, why does Heidi Cullen need to lie?

WryTrvllr on May 14, 2014 at 11:51 PM

Your volcano explanation doesn’t work. There’s no evidence that the Antarctic volcanic activity has increased recently, while there is plenty of evidence that the melt rate has. Furthermore, volcanos and glaciers can co-exist: just ask Iceland. Volcanos are accounted for in the analysis of the ice sheets. What we’re seeing is way beyond what they are capable of.

Hal_10000 on May 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM

What is your theory on what caused the melting of the massive glacier that is now Glacier Bay, AK 100 years ago?

Buddahpundit on May 15, 2014 at 12:00 AM

My sincerest apologies to all.

I happened to be driving today at the Limbaugh monologue. I heard that 4% of the population considers themselves to be below average intelligence.

Ok. Then 96 % consider themselves at or above.

Transposing bell curves, that means that the genius,( working at the EPA (to support the education establishment)) is 90% likely to be stupider than you.

17 trillion in debt.

WryTrvllr on May 15, 2014 at 12:03 AM

With ratios diminishing the smarter you think you are. Which is why I am so humble.

WryTrvllr on May 15, 2014 at 12:09 AM

Gee, in a thousand years. Will the human race be around in a thousand years? I am sure that many other things will confront the human race between now and 3014 that will be just as catastrophic of a possible ice melt.

SC.Charlie on May 15, 2014 at 7:18 AM

Geepers in 1000 years, folks can raise the foundation of the domes by less than a meter.

So our govt solution to stop a volcano under antartica is to put higher taxes on our home heating bills.

To do what?

ever notice the govt solution is another tax and another federal agency to do exactly what?
to study the problem?
so they increase our taxes to have more govt workers who vote for democrats.

sniffles1999 on May 15, 2014 at 7:56 AM

Nebraska used to be under the ocean. Now it is land. Alaska used to have palm trees. Now it is frigid. All this occurred before the arrival of a single, hysterical liberal (or anyone else). Oceans rise and fall and so do temperatures– with or without people. Earth abides.

But 1000 years!! OMG I’ll have to cancel Saturday’s party!!!

MaiDee on May 15, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I have a few suggestions but I’d be banned if I posted them here. I will tell you though that one particular favorite of mine involves Kerry, Jane Fonda, a cattle prod and a 55 gallon drum of KY jelly.

Oldnuke on May 14, 2014 at 7:19 PM

55 gall0n drum of KY jelly??? Really? My wife tells me a small tube is really expensive, even at Walmart. How about a 55 gallon drum of used 90 wt. oil?

smyt on May 15, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Hey, it is centuries away. The reason is unimportant to us.

Techster64 on May 15, 2014 at 10:32 AM

But 1000 years!! OMG I’ll have to cancel Saturday’s party!!!

MaiDee on May 15, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I hear there’s going to be a big end of the world party Saturday, sponsored by Tojan Condoms.
Should be fun.

dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 11:16 AM

But 1000 years!! OMG I’ll have to cancel Saturday’s party!!!

MaiDee on May 15, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I hear there’s going to be a big end of the world party Saturday, sponsored by Tojan Condoms.
Should be fun.

dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Nevermind – Trojan just backed out. Someone figured out if it’s the end of the world, nobody will be using their products….

dentarthurdent on May 15, 2014 at 11:18 AM

I live on the third floor, but I’m not taking any chances… I’m putting towels under the door!

Frank_D on May 15, 2014 at 12:52 PM

What if the sea floor collapses and the sea level drops?

mixplix on May 15, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Manmade global warming causes volcanoes…duuuuh.

/

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 15, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Hint… Water expands when it freezes, thus taking up a larger area of volume. The Arctic Ice is floating on the Arctic Ocean, when it melts (if it ever does) it will take up a reduced volumetric area as opposed to an increased volumetric area. In short… World Wide Ocean levels will decrease, not increase.

oscarwilde on May 14, 2014 at 6:27 PM

It stays the same. The ice shrinks as it liquifies to equal the volume of the subsurface ice.

cozmo on May 14, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Put your pants back on, and put your crack pipe away. Volume does not equal mass.

oscarwilde on May 14, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Not mass, displacement.

An ice cube displaces as much water as the ice cube would if it was not frozen water.

Basic ninth grade physical science experiment.

cozmo on May 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Dude, ‘oscarwilde’ is a real-life Theoretical Physicst, Rock Star and Expert on Aviation. Don’t doubt him, even if he’s apparently not familiar with Archimedes’ principle.

He kind of reminds me of that banned blow-hard SWalker somehow…

DarkCurrent on May 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Ha ha. I’m stealing your comment for the other thread.

blink on May 16, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Please, be my guest. But what other thread?

DarkCurrent on May 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Found it…

DarkCurrent on May 16, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Riddle me this?
When the ice melts in my drink, why doesn’t it spill over the top of the glass??? Dah-O!

Pole-Cat on May 16, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2