Study shows, skeptics know more about climate science than believers

[Tonington]

The melted water eventually mixes with the other water so it ends up being as salty as it was or Hudson Bay would always have a layer of fresh water laying on top.

Yes, of course it all mixes, eventually. That doesn't mean the sea level doesn't rise when the sea ice melts. It's not a violation of Archimedes principle.

 

[MHz]

No but I'm not promoting that either, but since you can't pile liquid water that is going to spread out over 360M sq km. If you were to play with the numbers a bit the to freeze Hudson Bay solid as well as the continental shelf in the Arctic that would only need 50 ft of ice above above the waterline to have the ice extend 500 ft down. That would be 80 ft for 800 ft of ice under the waterline. The very center of the Arctic Ocean is a rift and 12,000 ft deep so that would never freeze solid. If the ice was 2km deep over NY,NY then is that the 'average' because you need to drop the ocean level 400 ft to get the amount of ice that was locking up water.

Glaciers And Sea Level Rise | How Many Glaciers Are There
Researchers calculated the ice thickness for 171,000 glaciers worldwide, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which hold the bulk of Earth's frozen water. Through a combination of direct satellite observations and modeling, they determined the total volume of ice tied up in the glaciers is nearly 41,000 cubic miles (170,000 cubic kilometers), plus or minus 5,000 cubic miles (21,000 cubic km).
If all the glaciers were to melt, global sea levels would rise almost 17 inches (43 centimeters), the scientists found.



Predicting sea level rise
Compared with the potential sea level rise from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the volume of land-based glaciers is relatively small, Huss said. For example, completely melting the Greenland ice sheet would add 23 feet (7 meters) to the average global sea level, according to a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).




My math goes like this, so far. If I need to correct anything now would be the time to do it

(170,000 cubic kilometers) over 361,000,000 sq km = 43cm I came out with 47 but that is close enough, now the 43cm should be 430 M and that would give you the amount of ice you would need to pile up and once you determine how much land area was covered that would give you the depth of the ice. Is the Greenland Ice 980,000 cu km large? With the land being 2.13M sq km


Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the entire 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (684,000 cu mi) of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (24 ft).[2]
This ice melted over 361M would be what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#cite_note-IPCC-2001-2

 

[Cannuck]

I'm about to get salty...



That's not correct at all. The brine is rejected from the seawater as it approaches the freezing point. But when it melts, it's not as salty, it has a lower density than the sea water it was displacing. That means an equivalent mass of freshwater takes up more volume than the saltwater. So when the sea ice melts, it increases the volume of water. It's not as great a contribution as thermal expansion of water, or the volume of water that can be contributed from ice sheets on land that are thousands of kilometers across and kilometers thick. But to say it adds nothing to global sea levels is incorrect.

Try the kitchen experiment with salt water and ice, then see what happens. Scientists have even quantified the value with satellite measurements:
Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution - Shepherd - 2010 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Eureka!

Whomever was grading these questions isn't really up to date on their basic grade 10 physics...at a minimum. And considering the above? Fox reported that skeptics scored on average 4.5 correct versus 4 for the 'believers'. This one question above invalidates the findings. :lol:

That said, I'm not really surprised that people with an active interest in a subject have more knowledge than the general public. Why is that shocking? I don't think that's a particularly high bar to clear. However, they haven't scored higher than the scientists they say are full of crap, nor are they up to date such as with the findings of Shepherd et al. 2010 that I linked to above. That's not such an easy bar to clear if you only visit 'skeptical' blogs. ;-)

There you go getting all scientific and stuff...as I said, I don't have a lot of interest in the science behind this issue but I do get a kick out of the lack science behind this issue with regard to some people