# Drifting "Ice Island" iceberg could pose threat to ships, oil rigs off Canada



## CougarKing (10 Aug 2010)

Associated Press link




> *Ice island could pose threat to oil, ships*
> 
> Tue Aug 10, 5:27 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

> Few images can capture the world's climate fears like a 260-sqare-kilometre chunk of ice breaking off Greenland's vast ice sheet, a reservoir of freshwater that if it collapsed would raise global sea levels by a devastating 6 metres.




 :


I guess whoever made that statement has the opinion that if the ice in his drink melts, then his drink (if left unattended) will overflow.    :

Just a little bit of theatrics there.  "A devastating 6 metres" my arse.  It won't raise an inch you silly twats.  If it was going to raise the ocean levels, it would have happened already; WHEN THE ICE BROKE OFF THE GLACIER - NOT WHEN IT MELTS.  Anyone in Halifax flooded out of their homes yet?  I thought so.


----------



## Jaybar (10 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> 
> I guess whoever made that statement has the opinion that if the ice in his drink melts, then his drink (if left unattended) will overflow.    :
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't ice expand when it melts? A solid is more dense then a liquid. I know that if I leave ice in a drink and it melts the level does rise.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

Jaybar said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't ice expand when it melts? A solid is more dense then a liquid. I know that if I leave ice in a drink and it melts the level does rise.



Does it?  Go to the Fridge and get some ice, put it in a glass with some water, mark the level, and let it melt.  Wake me in the morning, with the results of your experiment.


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2010)

Jaybar said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't ice expand when it melts? A solid is more dense then a liquid. I know that if I leave ice in a drink and it melts the level does rise.



Well I am certainly no scientist
nor a global warming SME, 
but the water in my ice cube tray 
always tends to *expand* even higher
when I freeze it
it really seems to me.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Aug 2010)

I believe that there is some misunderstanding of the statement:


> Few images can capture the world's climate fears like a 260-sqare-kilometre chunk of ice breaking off Greenland's vast ice sheet*,* a reservoir of freshwater that if it collapsed would raise global sea levels by a devastating 6 metres.



Take note of the comma, the intent of which is to indicate that the following statement refers to Greenland's ice sheet.  I do not know if the statement is true or not, but perhaps some people on the site should pay attention to detail and apply some critical thinking before launching into what is just an awkward sentence.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Aug 2010)

[science hijack]

You're talking about the Archimedes (or displacement) principle. An object in water has already displaced it's weight by an equivalent volume of water. In the case of this ice island, if there was going to be a flood, it would have happened when the ice claved.

For example, when you step into a bathtub, the water rises. It falls again when you step out. Your weight (mass) has been displaced by an equal amount of water (volume). 

[/science hijack]


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I believe that there is some misunderstanding of the statement:
> Take note of the comma, the intent of which is to indicate that the following statement refers to Greenland's ice sheet.  I do not know if the statement is true or not, but perhaps some people on the site should pay attention to detail and apply some critical thinking before launching into what is just an awkward sentence.



Does it matter how awkward the sentence is?  If the whole Polar Ice Cap did melt, it would be the same as ice cubes in a glass.  We will still not see Halifax under water.


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2010)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I believe that there is some misunderstanding of the statement:
> Take note of the comma, the intent of which is to indicate that the following statement refers to Greenland's ice sheet.  I do not know if the statement is true or not, but perhaps some people on the site should pay attention to detail and apply some critical thinking before launching into what is just an awkward sentence.



I fully understoof the sentence to be a reference to "all of the ice-sheet" resulting in a rise of 6m.

Still doesn't change my observation that water in my tray gets larger when frozen vice the opposite. So, in the name of science, global warming, and in an attempt to clarify my observations and back them up with useful data ---

I will now go perform numerous experimentations utilizing ice cubes in my rum & coke in an effort to figure out the truth. Statisticly speaking, how many independant drink experiments would have to occur to obtain accurate results that either support, or not, my theory??  >  I'm thinking I may need a chaperone to observe said experimentation as I may have difficulty (after experiment number X) recording my observational data in any kind of legible manner.


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> [science hijack]
> 
> You're talking about the Archimedes (or displacement) principle. An object in water has already displaced it's weight by an equivalent volume of water. In the case of this ice island, if there was going to be a flood, it would have happened when the ice claved.
> 
> ...



Don't go getting all _sciencey_ on me ... I have important work to do!!  8)


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I will now go perform numerous experimentations utilizing ice cubes in my rum & coke in an effort to figure out the truth. Statisticly speaking, how many independant drink experiments would have to occur to obtain accurate results that either support, or not, my theory??  >  I'm thinking I may need a chaperone to observe said experimentation as I may have difficulty (after experiment number X) recording my observational data in any kind of legible manner.




Now you have really complicated the experiment.  We will now have to measure levels as the ice initially is placed in the drink, the levels taken for what you drank, the amount of fluids passed through the body, the amount of fluids that may or may not have been filtered by the body, calculate amount of fluids retained by the body, weight of an unladened African swallow, and the amount of time between initial application of ice to rum and final measurements of contents of empty glass.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (10 Aug 2010)

A few dozen hundred harpoon missiles would do the trick  ;D


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now you have really complicated the experiment.  We will now have to measure levels as the ice initially is placed in the drink, the levels taken for what you drank, the amount of fluids passed through the body, the amount of fluids that may or may not have been filtered by the body, calculate amount of fluids retained by the body, weight of an unladened African swallow, and the amount of time between initial application of ice to rum and final measurements of contents of empty glass.



OK!!

 ;D


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (10 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does it matter how awkward the sentence is?  If the whole Polar Ice Cap did melt, it would be the same as ice cubes in a glass.  We will still not see Halifax under water.



Ice is a solid, it doesn't flow like a liquid...

Remember not all the ice is underwater.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I fully understoof the sentence to be a reference to "all of the ice-sheet" resulting in a rise of 6m.
> 
> Still doesn't change my observation that water in my tray gets larger when frozen vice the opposite. So, in the name of science, global warming, and in an attempt to clarify my observations and back them up with useful data ---
> 
> I will now go perform numerous experimentations utilizing ice cubes in my rum & coke in an effort to figure out the truth. Statisticly speaking, how many independant drink experiments would have to occur to obtain accurate results that either support, or not, my theory??  >  I'm thinking I may need a chaperone to observe said experimentation as I may have difficulty (after experiment number X) recording my observational data in any kind of legible manner.



I can explain that one too, but I don't want to ruin your fun. Or a good night's drinking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2010)

Just more scare mongering by the Al Gore crowd.


Nothing to see here. Move along.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> Ice is a solid, it doesn't flow like a liquid...
> 
> Remember not all the ice is underwater.



Ice melts.

90% or so is underwater.  Ice floats.  It melts.  

This experiment has been done millions of times.  I am sure, tomorrow morning dozens who have read this thread will have tried the experiment.



Fact for you Trivial Pursuit buffs:  Glass is a liquid.


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2010)

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> Not all the ice is in the water.



I have poured a rum & coke.

It has 5 ice cubes in it.

I have marked the level as to where the liquid is now (NB: not ALL the ice is "in" the drink, but it is ALL "in" the glass  ).

I will mark the level where the liquid is when the ice converts into water (and thus is then ALL "in" the drink).

I will NOT drink this drink   (until after the ice has melted & I have noted whether the liquid level has risen or fallen  ;D).

Right now, I will pour yet another rum & coke - with ice - so that I may watch the other ice melt and become one with the liquid (hoping it's not watching toast).

Will report back the findings whenever that is complete.


_Sigh_ ~ the things I do for science and all things 'green'. Perhaps, I'll have to run for leader of the Green Party next ...


----------



## Stoker (10 Aug 2010)

Something like 90% of the ice in the world is at the South Pole and is thousands of feet thick, if that was to melt it would raise sea levels to around 200 feet. There is no warming of the south pole. The ice in the north is fairly thin anyways and it mostly floats, so it totally melted it wouldn't affect sea levels at all. Now if the Greenland ice sheet totally melted it would rise sea levels at least 20 feet.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

Stoker said:
			
		

> ....... There is no warming of the south pole.



Not the news that I have been watching.  Large chunks of Antarctica, that make this berg look tiny, have broken free and are adrift.  Halifax is still above water.


----------



## Jaybar (10 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does it?  Go to the Fridge and get some ice, put it in a glass with some water, mark the level, and let it melt.  Wake me in the morning, with the results of your experiment.



You're right, just tried it and nothing happened. The rise I was seeing before was from thermal expansion after the ice had melted. After doing some reading water is one of the few things denser when it's a liquid then when it's a solid. So ya a claim of 6m is ridiculous to say the least.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (10 Aug 2010)

By George, I think he's got it!

I just tried this as well.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2010)

Giant Antarctic iceberg could affect global ocean circulation

======================================================================
Huge Antarctic iceberg broke off as scientists focused elsewhere

=======================================================================
Vast Antarctic iceberg split off from Antarctic glacier 
A Australian scientist named Neal Young said it is a natural event & not due to climate change. He captured the moment with his camera.

The iceberg is approximate 2545 square kilometers, approximate the size of Australian Capital Territory.

The crash of an iceberg against a glacier is a dramatic & unexpected event.

Neal Young said to BBC News, “It is a very active area for algae growth, especially in springtime. There are emperor penguin colonies about 200-300km away to the west. They come to this area to feed, and seals in the area also come to get access to the open water.”

Neal Young said, “iceberg B9B, which had broken off from another part of Antarctica in 1987, came by and “gave it a pretty big nudge.”


----------



## Quag (11 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Fact for you Trivial Pursuit buffs:  Glass is a liquid.



George,

This is actually a myth. 

Some folk say that glass is a supercooled liquid because there is no first order phase transition as it cools.  In reality, there is a second order transition between the supercooled liquid state and the glass state, so a distinction is drawn.

Glass is an amorphous solid.

There is a fundamental structural divide between amorphous solids (including glasses) and crystalline solids (the solids we would think about (steel etc...) . Structurally, glasses are similar to liquids, but are not in fact.

Just wanted to get that out before anyone lost a trivial pursuit game!   ;D


----------



## Stoker (11 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not the news that I have been watching.  Large chunks of Antarctica, that make this berg look tiny, have broken free and are adrift.  Halifax is still above water.



It is way colder in most parts of Antarctica than in the north. The floating ice is not the problem, the real problem is the ice sheet that is thousands of feet thick, if that starts to melt (highly unlikely) then the oceans will rise.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2010)

Quag said:
			
		

> Glass is an amorphous solid.
> 
> There is a fundamental structural divide between amorphous solids (including glasses) and crystalline solids (the solids we would think about (steel etc...) . Structurally, glasses are similar to liquids, but are not in fact.



I stand corrected.  However, glass like liquids does flow................at an extraordinarily slow rate, as witnessed in very old glass windows (very old - 100 years or more).

I linked the above "amorphous solid" to a FACT page.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Aug 2010)

Jaybar said:
			
		

> You're right, just tried it and nothing happened. The rise I was seeing before was from thermal expansion after the ice had melted. After doing some reading water is one of the few things denser when it's a liquid then when it's a solid. So ya a claim of 6m is ridiculous to say the least.



You do know that the Greenland ice shelf is actually NOT in the water per se right now, right?  A better experiment would be to watch the water level in your glass as you ADD ice cubes.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Aug 2010)

I work with water all the time.  It's about the only substance I know of that expands when both heated and frozen, and can't be compressed.


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You do know that the Greenland ice shelf is actually NOT in the water per se right now, right?  A better experiment would be to watch the water level in your glass as you ADD ice cubes.



I'll have to add more rum to make up for that variable.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2010)

From the Australian Government Environment Ministry:

 
 FACTS ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE 


> * Are reports of sea level rise of 6m correct?*
> With recent observations of the speed-up of some glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica, it has been argued that the IPCC estimate of the ice dynamic effect may be too low. Total sea level rise of as much as 6 m over the next century has been proposed based on a comparison with sea level rise rates at the end of the last ice age.
> 
> However, at the end of last ice age there was three times as much ice to melt as there is presently on the Earth. A rise of sea level by 6 m over the next century is improbable within constraints of the area of present day ice sheets, and the rate at which glaciers can accelerate.
> ...


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (11 Aug 2010)

The problem is not the ice in the water, the problem is the melting ice on land. Antarctica and Groenland being land, the ice contained on their surface is not taken into consideration for the sea level until it actually melt.

As for Halifax, research has shown that the sea level has been rising by 3.2 mm/year since 1920 and projection for the future using  recognized model shows that the sea level might rise to 0,73 m average in the next century with maximum sea level up to 1,3m. Until now, most projection underestimated the rate of climate change so we can probably ballpark at 1m if not more.

http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/documents/HRM-OF_v5.pdf

and here's a presentation given to the HRM municipal council on Feb 2009.
http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/100209cow4.pdf

Of course you can argue about climate change and the reasons for rising sea levels but you can't really argue with the fact the sea level is actually rising, that the rate is increasing  and that in a distant future, Lower water street will pretty much be underwater.

Enjoy the Lower Deck while it's still there  ;D


----------



## Jaybar (11 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You do know that the Greenland ice shelf is actually NOT in the water per se right now, right?  A better experiment would be to watch the water level in your glass as you ADD ice cubes.



Of course I do. The problem is that this article reads like some doomsday warning "Ice is melting, we're all going to die"! Even if all of the ice sheet on Greenland melted it would take hundreds to thousands of years for that to happen. Unless something really bad happens in which case I think the ice melting is going to be the last of our worries.

This is one of the better reports I could find on climate change:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/


----------



## HavokFour (11 Aug 2010)

Ladies and gentlemen, nature can be a mean mistress.  I propose everyone on the planet open their fridges and freezers simultaneously to combat her. But really, it's just a bit of water.

Thank god my parents had the foresight to send me to swimming lessons when I was a kid.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2010)

From the Australian Government Environment Ministry:

 
 FACTS ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE 


If you follow the above link you can visualize using the diagrams, charts and data supplied what their research has concluded.


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2010)

Oh yeah, for all those wondering - I have discovered that watching ice melt is indeed worse than watching bread toast, even given the rum & cokes that I drank while supervising the experiment.

- Not an iota of movement in the liquid level up or down for the ice cubes that were already ìn the glass. However, that all changed when I added more ice cubes to the liquid then watched a sudden increase occur (as if the ice cubes were sliding into the glass from 'land') ... I then had to drink quickly to reduce liquid level - lest I overflowed.

Will re-do tonight and see if I obtain same results.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Aug 2010)

IIRC, ice melts at the same rate as water evaporates, so there should be no difference in the level after the ice melts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2010)

My feet aren't wet, I don't care.

This is starting to get just a little retarded.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Fact for you Trivial Pursuit buffs:  Glass is a liquid.



Everything you said was right up to this point.  It's been repeated often, but glass isn't really a liquid.

Back to the ice, the level of the sea changes when the piece of ice falls in, not when it melts.  Ice is less dense than liquid water, so a given volume of water produces slightly more ice (which sticks up above the surface when the ice is floating).  When the ice melts it returns to the density of liquid water so the surface stays exactly where it is.  Evaporation doesn't play any part in it.

Water is unusual in this behaviour.  For most materials the solid does tend to be denser than the liquid (and much denser than the gas).  As you cool water it does become denser, but only until you reach about 4 degrees Celsius.  As it cools below that temperature (and eventually freezes) it expands.  That's why frozen pipes burst.


----------



## Franko (13 Aug 2010)

This sums it all up nicely:

http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/General/Glass/glass.html



> There have been many claims (especially by tour guides) that such glass is deformed because the glass has flowed slowly over the centuries.  This has become a persistent myth, but close inspection shows that characteristic signs of flow, such as flowing around, and out of the frame, are not present.  The deformations are more consistent with imperfections of the methods used to make panes of glass at the time.  In some cases gaps appear between glass panes and their frames, but this is due to deformations in the lead framework rather than the glass.  Other examples of rippling in windows of old homes can be accounted for because the glass was imperfectly flattened by rolling before the float glass process came into use.
> 
> It is difficult to verify with absolute certainty that no examples of glass flow exist, because there are almost always no records of the original state.  In rare cases stained glass windows are found to contain lead, which would lower the viscosity and make them heavier.  Could these examples deform under their own weight?  Only careful study and analysis can answer this question.  Robert Brill of the Corning glass museum has been studying antique glass for over 30 years.  He has examined many examples of glass from old buildings, measuring their material properties and chemical composition.  He has taken a special interest in the glass flow myth and has always looked for evidence for and against.  In his opinion, the notion that glass in Mediaeval stained glass windows has flowed over the centuries is untrue and, he says, examples of sagging and ripples in old windows are also most likely physical characteristics resulting from the manufacturing process.  Other experts who have made similar studies agree.  Theoretical analysis based on measured glass viscosities shows that glass should not deform significantly even over many centuries, and a clear link is found between types of deformation in the glass and the way it was produced.






> There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?".  In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid.  The difference is semantic.  In terms of its material properties we can do little better.  There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids.  All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties.  Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience.  The use of the term "supercooled liquid" to describe glass still persists, but is considered by many to be an unfortunate misnomer that should be avoided.  In any case, claims that glass panes in old windows have deformed due to glass flow have never been substantiated.  Examples of Roman glassware and calculations based on measurements of glass visco-properties indicate that these claims cannot be true.  The observed features are more easily explained as a result of the imperfect methods used to make glass window panes before the float glass process was invented.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Everything you said was right up to this point.  It's been repeated often, but glass isn't really a liquid.




 :



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Quag said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But thanks for pointing it out again.


As Quag also pointed out to me, and Der Panzerkommandant has posted, the fact of the affects of gravity on glass has also been proven by some as being a myth.


----------

