Ok, what's the truth.

[miamited]

Hi everyone,

So today I'm reading this article about the Thwaites glacier and how divers have swam underneath it with sonar devices to explore the ice thickness and that it is thinning and may crack and the oceans will go crazy high. So, I looked up some images of the Thwaites glacier and it is entirely afloat. It is not some glacier running off the side of some land mass. Now, it has always been my understanding that when ice, that is floating in water melts, it does not change the water level because the area that the ice displaces by its weight is the same area as the ice will take when it melts to water.

In other words the ice is larger than the area that it displaces because the water, in ice form, is not as dense.

I even looked it up and found this:

When ice melts, the resulting water is denser, so a particular mass of what had been solid ice will have a smaller volume when it becomes liquid water. This change in volume exactly offsets the small percentage of ice that is above the water's surface. Therefore, melting sea ice does not affect sea levels. From exploratorium.edu

And as I perused the page I noticed a lot of sites making the same claim. In fact, I couldn't find a single one that said differently.

So why? Why is a huge floating block of ice the size of Florida not also displacing the water beneath it in the same way that every other floating block of ice in water does?

Any answers? I'd post the article but it's WaPo and they have a pay wall. But if anyone cares to Google, just googel 'thwaites glacier melts'.

God bless,
Ted

 

[dwb001]

Because your observations(while true) don't scare anyone into "fighting climate change".
Why promote science when fear is a better motivator.

 

[miamited]

Because your observations(while true) don't scare anyone into "fighting climate change".
Why promote science when fear is a better motivator.

Hi dwb001

Well, on some level I agree with you. And I'll be the first to say that I know the earth is not going to burn up because man did something concerning the climate. The earth is reserved for fire and has always been and it will burn up. Peter tells us about it. But it will be God's doing. Now, might God be setting up our climate to prepare for a massive burning of the planet? Could be, but if that's the case, there isn't any change that man is going to make to prevent it or delay it. It will happen as God has willed that it will happen.

So, I am in agreement that 'mankind' may be making a bigger deal of this climate issue than it truly deserves...but that's what man does. That's the same group that tries to tell us that the earth and universe are billions of years old, when God's word is pretty clear that it is only about 6,000 years old. So, I'm with you in being careful about the endeavors of man. But that's just our being careful about what we believe as the truth.

And I don't attribute it to 'scare' tactics. Mankind just doesn't know the truth and so these things coming to us as changes wrought by our climate are seen as something to be fearful of. Science believes that we're destroying the atmosphere. People believe science. Therefore people believe that we're destroying the atmosphere.

God bless,
Ted

 

[hawkman]

Mankind just doesn't know the truth and so these things coming to us as changes wrought by our climate are seen as something to be fearful of.

The people in charge say give us lots of money and give up your freedom and we can fix it and you will be safe again .

Science believes that we're destroying the atmosphere.

Some $ scientists $ want us to believe we are the ones responsible for destroying the atmosphere . How else can the $people$ in charge have the leverage to extract our money and freedom from us at the same time .

People believe science.

It depends .

Therefore people believe that we're destroying the atmosphere.

There are battle lines being drawn on that .

 

[miamited]

Hi hawkman

The people in charge say give us lots of money and give up your freedom and we can fix it and you will be safe again .

Well, I haven't ever understood the work of our government in that way, but I suppose it is a valid understanding. I would think it would make someone pretty paranoid or fearful.

Some $ scientists $ want us to believe we are the ones responsible for destroying the atmosphere . How else can the $people$ in charge have the leverage to extract our money and freedom from us at the same time .

Yes, some scientists want us to believe that and I'm not opposed to believing that some of the things that we're doing aren't particularly good for the atmosphere, but I believe in a God who has planned for all that. I'm not sure I get the constant connection with money. Has something in the government put you in a tough financial place? With all the dollar signs and the mention of money, you seem quite obsessed about it.

I mean hey, if any new technology puts people to work and derives enough cash flow from customers to produce a profit, then in a pretty free capitalist economy, someone's going to go for it. That's the thing about changing technology. It drives a lot of the economy in any economy. Why when computers were first created nobody even knew what a silicon chip was. Today we use them by the billions. Whole industries and factories and shipping and production departments have been created to make and sell and deliver silicon chips. Something that we didn't even know existed 60 years ago. In another 60 years we'll have charging stations like we have gas stations today, but most people won't need them because they'll be local commuting from home to work and charge at home so they'll never need a commercial charging station. But it will be there for them if they ever are out on a trip away from home and need to charge.

God bless,
Ted

 

[hawkman]

Has something in the government put you in a tough financial place?

Yes , President Joe Biden . Inflation .

With all the dollar signs and the mention of money, you seem quite obsessed about it.

The "truth" you want propagated can be bought . Or do you believe otherwise ?

 

[miamited]

Yes , President Joe Biden . Inflation .

Hi hawkman

Yes, inflation is hurting everyone. But it was coming whether Pres. Biden was elected or not. During the Trump administration we went through a major upheaval in two ways. First most basic income levels were raised pretty significantly after 2012. Then the pandemic collapsed pretty much all supply routes, manufacturing and just production in general.

It just isn't possible to raise 70% of the wages in American businesses and not see increased prices due to increased manufacturing costs. We used to get cars from Mexico a lot cheaper until the last trade agreement went into effect forcing Mexican companies to pay those employed making cars for the American market, I think it was $18/hr. That I believe was 2018. So, I'm fairly confident that this rising prices was coming no matter who was sitting in the big chair.

The "truth" you want propagated can be bought . Or do you believe otherwise ?

Well, I know that it can be. I just don't think I'm quite as concerned that it necessarily is in the majority of cases, if one is careful as to what sources they will believe.

God bless,
Ted

 

[WIP]

Hi everyone,

So today I'm reading this article about the Thwaites glacier and how divers have swam underneath it with sonar devices to explore the ice thickness and that it is thinning and may crack and the oceans will go crazy high. So, I looked up some images of the Thwaites glacier and it is entirely afloat. It is not some glacier running off the side of some land mass. Now, it has always been my understanding that when ice, that is floating in water melts, it does not change the water level because the area that the ice displaces by its weight is the same area as the ice will take when it melts to water.

In other words the ice is larger than the area that it displaces because the water, in ice form, is not as dense.

I even looked it up and found this:

When ice melts, the resulting water is denser, so a particular mass of what had been solid ice will have a smaller volume when it becomes liquid water. This change in volume exactly offsets the small percentage of ice that is above the water's surface. Therefore, melting sea ice does not affect sea levels. From exploratorium.edu

And as I perused the page I noticed a lot of sites making the same claim. In fact, I couldn't find a single one that said differently.

So why? Why is a huge floating block of ice the size of Florida not also displacing the water beneath it in the same way that every other floating block of ice in water does?

Any answers? I'd post the article but it's WaPo and they have a pay wall. But if anyone cares to Google, just googel 'thwaites glacier melts'.

God bless,
Ted

In addition to this I think I'm correct that glacier ice is made up of fresh water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water. Logically then, is the displacement 1:1 or is the melted glacier going to be lower volume? I'm not a scientist so I don't know the answer. Just thinking out loud so-to-speak.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hi everyone,

So today I'm reading this article about the Thwaites glacier and how divers have swam underneath it with sonar devices to explore the ice thickness and that it is thinning and may crack and the oceans will go crazy high. So, I looked up some images of the Thwaites glacier and it is entirely afloat. It is not some glacier running off the side of some land mass. Now, it has always been my understanding that when ice, that is floating in water melts, it does not change the water level because the area that the ice displaces by its weight is the same area as the ice will take when it melts to water.

In other words the ice is larger than the area that it displaces because the water, in ice form, is not as dense.

I even looked it up and found this:

When ice melts, the resulting water is denser, so a particular mass of what had been solid ice will have a smaller volume when it becomes liquid water. This change in volume exactly offsets the small percentage of ice that is above the water's surface. Therefore, melting sea ice does not affect sea levels. From exploratorium.edu

And as I perused the page I noticed a lot of sites making the same claim. In fact, I couldn't find a single one that said differently.

So why? Why is a huge floating block of ice the size of Florida not also displacing the water beneath it in the same way that every other floating block of ice in water does?

Any answers? I'd post the article but it's WaPo and they have a pay wall. But if anyone cares to Google, just googel 'thwaites glacier melts'.

God bless,
Ted

I myself did not do this but Martin Iles looked up all the dire predictions of the climate change alarm bell ringers like "an inconvient truth" and found that 100% of their dire predictions were wrong. All of them. They gave dates by which the natural world would be violently changed, islands disappear into the ocean and beach cities swallowed up and none of their predictions came true. Some of the islands have actually gained land since the predictions. So one takes these things with a grain of salt when one heard the climate alarm bell ringers make predictions of the end of the world.

 

[miamited]

In addition to this I think I'm correct that glacier ice is made up of fresh water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water. Logically then, is the displacement 1:1 or is the melted glacier going to be lower volume? I'm not a scientist so I don't know the answer. Just thinking out loud so-to-speak.

Hi WIP

While I agree that the density of the two types of water may have some bearing on the equation. No one that I've read seems to make that point either way. Most everything I've looked at on this particular and specific issue is that a body of ice floating in a liquid will displace exactly the same amount of 'area' in that body of water that the ice would take up if it melted back into water. I've never seen any addendum to that statement that it is, or may be different, if the body of water is saltwater and the melting ice is freshwater.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Dorothy Mae

I myself did not do this but Martin Iles looked up all the dire predictions of the climate change alarm bell ringers like "an inconvient truth" and found that 100% of their dire predictions were wrong.

That's really quite true in some cases. We were told that the Greenland ice sheet would be gone. But it isn't. But it is greatly reduced and still the water level in Ft. Lauderdale when I go down there every year for vacation is about the same place on the shore as it always has been. At least in the 67 years of my memory.

As this thread is pointing out. Ice that is full floating, such as this Thwaites glacier, should not cause any appreciable rise in sea level if the entire glacier melts. The ice contained in the glacier, once it melts back to water, will fill exactly the hole in the water that the ice had always taken up as it floated. No loss, no gain. The ice over the land mass of Greenland, however, if it melts it will add water volume to the seas. But half of it's gone and there is no appreciable change in the sea level. A few inches at most.

It seems that most of the calculations are done with the assumed end that all of the frozen water glaciers and ice sheets are going to melt. But that's not likely to be the reality of what happens. If that worst case scenario happens, then yes, sea levels may rise a couple of inches, maybe half a foot, but that isn't really going to change anything except that people living on the coast might have to build a seawall. Nowhere in Florida will a 6" increase in the ocean's water level cause any drastic problems. There is actually no place on the North American continent where a 6" rise in sea level will 'destroy' mankind. At the very worst, we may lose some million dollar homes that everyone has said they shouldn't have built where they did in the first place. Today, even insurance companies are reluctant to insure homes sitting immediately on the coast. They get wiped out by hurricanes all the time.

Yes, they holler a lot about the ozone, but we don't really know that God didn't plan for all of this and the ozone escaping is all part of the original design.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

BTW, if it is true, what is said about melting ice and water displacement. The entire north pole can melt and it won't appreciably raise sea level. Now, the south pole ice is an ice sheet and it sits on land. If all of that melts, then the sea will likely rise. But I honestly don't think that even with the changes we've seen, that there's a chance in this life that the entire south pole ice sheet would melt. Even today it is the coldest place on the earth and the temperature over the area would have to pretty much always be above freezing for the entire ice sheet to melt. And it would need to be above freezing for a long time.

Here are the average temperatures, by month, for the weather at the south pole:

MonthHigh / Low(°F)Rain

---

January-14° / -21°0 days

---

February-36° / -46°0 days

---

March-57° / -71°0 days

---

April-64° / -79°0 days

---

May-64° / -80°0 days

---

June-66° / -81°0 days

---

July-68° / -83°0 days

---

August-68° / -83°0 days

---

September-67° / -82°0 days

---

October-54° / -65°0 days

---

November-33° / -40°0 days

---

December-14° / -20°0 days

If those temperatures are still true today, then there's not really a chance in, well you know what, that the Antarctic ice sheet is ever going to fully melt. It will subside and it will grow as mean temperature fluctuates on the earth.

God bless,
Ted

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP

While I agree that the density of the two types of water may have some bearing on the equation. No one that I've read seems to make that point either way. Most everything I've looked at on this particular and specific issue is that a body of ice floating in a liquid will displace exactly the same amount of 'area' in that body of water that the ice would take up if it melted back into water. I've never seen any addendum to that statement that it is, or may be different, if the body of water is saltwater and the melting ice is freshwater.

God bless,
Ted

Is it possible that the concerns about rising sea levels could be from glacial and non-glacial ice melting from land surfaces?

 

[ezrider]

Hi WIP

While I agree that the density of the two types of water may have some bearing on the equation. No one that I've read seems to make that point either way. Most everything I've looked at on this particular and specific issue is that a body of ice floating in a liquid will displace exactly the same amount of 'area' in that body of water that the ice would take up if it melted back into water. I've never seen any addendum to that statement that it is, or may be different, if the body of water is saltwater and the melting ice is freshwater.

God bless,
Ted

Parts or the majority of the glacier may be floating on water, but the glacier is not an independent iceberg floating in the ocean. The glacier is still land locked so the mass of the glacier has not displaced the full measure of water until it breaks off and become a floating iceberg. But I don't think the concern is that particular glacier itself, but rather the continental ice flows that the glacier holds back.

 

[ezrider]

BTW, if it is true, what is said about melting ice and water displacement. The entire north pole can melt and it won't appreciably raise sea level. Now, the south pole ice is an ice sheet and it sits on land. If all of that melts, then the sea will likely rise. But I honestly don't think that even with the changes we've seen, that there's a chance in this life that the entire south pole ice sheet would melt. Even today it is the coldest place on the earth and the temperature over the area would have to pretty much always be above freezing for the entire ice sheet to melt. And it would need to be above freezing for a long time.

Here are the average temperatures, by month, for the weather at the south pole:

MonthHigh / Low(°F)Rain

---

January-14° / -21°0 days

---

February-36° / -46°0 days

---

March-57° / -71°0 days

---

April-64° / -79°0 days

---

May-64° / -80°0 days

---

June-66° / -81°0 days

---

July-68° / -83°0 days

---

August-68° / -83°0 days

---

September-67° / -82°0 days

---

October-54° / -65°0 days

---

November-33° / -40°0 days

---

December-14° / -20°0 days

If those temperatures are still true today, then there's not really a chance in, well you know what, that the Antarctic ice sheet is ever going to fully melt. It will subside and it will grow as mean temperature fluctuates on the earth.

God bless,
Ted

Just curious Ted, but do you understand the way a glacial system works? Glaciers flow, like a frozen river, eventually flowing to the ocean. When they reach the ocean, they melt from underneath. So what do the colder surface temperatures have to do with the warmer ocean temperatures beneath?

 

[ezrider]

So, I am in agreement that 'mankind' may be making a bigger deal of this climate issue than it truly deserves...but that's what man does. That's the same group that tries to tell us that the earth and universe are billions of years old, when God's word is pretty clear that it is only about 6,000 years old.

Hi miamited, I get the sense you mock science because of what you believe the Bible tells you. As you said, you believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Now you can hold that belief close to your heart all you like, but that doesn't change the physical evidence present in nature that informs us it is much much older. Now science would tell you that the melting glaciers in Greenland and Antartica could raise the sea levels dramatically, potentially flooding many coastal regions, yet you and many Christians seem to mock that prediction,

Now sticking with your premise that the earth is only 6000 years old because that what you believe a book tells you, then I believe it was less than 4000 years ago that your book tells us that God flooded the earth, saving only Noah and those on the ark. In 40 days and 40 nights God flooded the earth. Now because you believe the earth is only 6000 years old, then I will presume that you also believe Noah's flood to be worldwide. Where did the waters come from? And when the waters receded, where did they go?

 

[miamited]

HI ezrider

You are new at this, huh? The waters of the flood came from the same place that God's word says that they did. Rain and the springs of the deep. Florida, lies on a very large water aquifer, and of course, it isn't limited to just the state of Florida, but there are claims that groundwater in the earth is more that 5.5 million cubic 'miles'. Let that sink in. Just imagine a cubic mile of water in front of your house and then add 5.5 million of them to it. It's a pretty awesome amount of juice, friend.

Then there is also the idea, and it is just a theory, but the breaking up of the springs of the deep is ultimately what brought about the high mountains that we see on the earth's surface today. So we might consider that the land mass that, while hugely large, may not have been so hugely high, as some of the tallest mountains are today. I mean there is a fairly good argument to be made, just from the shapes of the continents, that the earth, at one point, may well have only had one solid land mass. Forty days of torrential rain and God breaking open the caverns of water beneath, in the same was as He parted a 300' deep body of water, would likely make for some changes on the earth's surface that we see today, after the event.

But yes, I not only believe, but I know that God flooded the whole earth about 4,500 years ago. I also know, and believe, that it's only been about 6,000 years since anything has existed in this realm. But as to your question about the flood, God has told you where the water comes from. Now, if you wanted to really check it out and see if there really is enough water contained within the earth and its own atmosphere to flood itself...the answer is yes and you can check it out and do the math. I know that He caused a shadow cast by the sun to go backwards the distance of ten steps. I know that God held the sun still in the sky just over Israel for several hours. The Scriptures record it as pretty much the whole day, but I'm willing to be lenient on how many hours that might be. I believe that in one night in Egypt, every first born of both man and cattle lay dead on one bright sunny morning. I believe that an ax head floated right up off the bottom of a creek/river. I believe that an ass spoke understandable language to a man. I believe that 3 men were thrown into a furnace that was at least hot enough to melt steel and walked around and came out without a hair singed on their heads. Friend, I believe every word of the Scriptures is true and correct. That where it describes an event happening upon the earth, or in heaven for that matter, that event happened just as God's word had recorded it for us.

That's what I know and believe about God.

God bless,
Ted

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again ezrider

I don't mock science. I believe and know that science has a very important role in our standard of living and knowledge of the things of the here and now as it should. I trust science pretty much in anything that it can prove to me. Like I know that science can prove to me how a baby is born, Duh! Because today a scientist can watch and see how everything works and fits together and how the man's sperm squiggles and wiggles its way to the egg in the woman's womb and then the egg floats a bit until it attaches to the wall of the womb and then connections are made that allow that egg to grow into a human being and so forth and so on. Science can show me videos from start to finish as to how every baby has been born...except one.

When science can tell me how Mary came to be pregnant under the conditions described in the Scriptures, then they will be proving something for which they have no knowledge or evidence of, pretty much just like the knowledge that science has about the 'beginning' of this realm of creation.

God bless,
Ted

 

[ezrider]

HI ezrider

You are new at this, huh? The waters of the flood came from the same place that God's word says that they did. Rain and the springs of the deep. Florida, lies on a very large water aquifer, and of course, it isn't limited to just the state of Florida, but there are claims that groundwater in the earth is more that 5.5 million cubic 'miles'. Let that sink in. Just imagine a cubic mile of water in front of your house and then add 5.5 million of them to it. It's a pretty awesome amount of juice, friend.

Then there is also the idea, and it is just a theory, but the breaking up of the springs of the deep is ultimately what brought about the high mountains that we see on the earth's surface today. So we might consider that the land mass that, while hugely large, may not have been so hugely high, as some of the tallest mountains are today. I mean there is a fairly good argument to be made, just from the shapes of the continents, that the earth, at one point, may well have only had one solid land mass. Forty days of torrential rain and God breaking open the caverns of water beneath, in the same was as He parted a 300' deep body of water, would likely make for some changes on the earth's surface that we see today, after the event.

But yes, I not only believe, but I know that God flooded the whole earth about 4,500 years ago. I also know, and believe, that it's only been about 6,000 years since anything has existed in this realm. But as to your question about the flood, God has told you where the water comes from. Now, if you wanted to really check it out and see if there really is enough water contained within the earth and its own atmosphere to flood itself...the answer is yes and you can check it out and do the math. I know that He caused a shadow cast by the sun to go backwards the distance of ten steps. I know that God held the sun still in the sky just over Israel for several hours. The Scriptures record it as pretty much the whole day, but I'm willing to be lenient on how many hours that might be. I believe that in one night in Egypt, every first born of both man and cattle lay dead on one bright sunny morning. I believe that an ax head floated right up off the bottom of a creek/river. I believe that an ass spoke understandable language to a man. I believe that 3 men were thrown into a furnace that was at least hot enough to melt steel and walked around and came out without a hair singed on their heads. Friend, I believe every word of the Scriptures is true and correct. That where it describes an event happening upon the earth, or in heaven for that matter, that event happened just as God's word had recorded it for us.

That's what I know and believe about God.

God bless,
Ted

God bless,
Ted

Sorry Ted, but you missed the point entirely. Why do you think your beliefs are superior to the knowledge gained through science? Why do you mock science for their understanding yet feel so persecuted when someone mocks your beliefs? Does the Bible mention glaciers anywhere? Does God tell you about the glaciers melting? If not, then perhaps you should leave it to the scientist to discuss, and carry no opinion yourself.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sorry Ted, but you missed the point entirely. Why do you think your beliefs are superior to the knowledge gained through science? Why do you mock science for their understanding yet feel so persecuted when someone mocks your beliefs? Does the Bible mention glaciers anywhere? Does God tell you about the glaciers melting? If not, then perhaps you should leave it to the scientist to discuss, and carry no opinion yourself.

Glaciers and earth sciences are not my area but we are supposed to live in a country where people are supposed to have opinions and not leave all knowledge to the "experts" like the people in the Middle Ages were supposed to leave all thinking to the priests. We are not free if we are not allowed to have opinions, informed or uninformed.