A ? of force.

​

Sensational headline aside (the net effect is, of course, zero), yes it is detectable from space. Yes, thousands of milimeters is probably an understatement: it is probably going to be dozens of meters -- perhaps even thousands of decimeters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is right, and the headline did not read:
Earth To Implode Soon Due To Antartic Meltdown

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They should have said "Melondown".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed with the above. Mass is leaving the Antarctic in the form of meltwater and thus gravity would be expected to decline slightly.

However, I stand by my original point, which is that melting the FLOATING ice in the Arctic will do exactly zero to change gravity, pressure or density of the water or crust beneath it.

 

as/re:
Antarctica Meltdown Weakens Earth's Gravity
(from live "science")
Jeez
Those people would write a headline:
Frog eats horse
fly in the meadow south of the barn.

 

Yeah, apparently so would these guys:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/west-antarcticas-meltdown-weakens-earths-gravity-n216336
http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s-earths-gravity/story-fn5fsgyc-1227078080852
http://esciencenews.com/sources/msn...t.antarcticas.meltdown.weakens.earths.gravity
http://mainenewsonline.com/content/14101000-west-antarctica-s-meltdown-weakened-earth-s-gravity-esa
http://pangeauniverse.blogspot.com/2014/10/antarctica-meltdown-weakens-earths.html
http://forum.canucks.com/topic/364028-antarctica-meltdown-weakens-earths-gravity/
http://omnifeed.com/article/www.new...s-earths-gravity/story-fn5fsgyc-1227078080852
http://www.asoc.org/explore/latest-news/1322-news-template


And of course that despicable rag from the Smithsonian:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...rctica-alter-earths-gravity-180952910/?no-ist

You can always go the source and debunk it easily enough, right sculptor?
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_reveals_gravity_dip_from_ice_loss

Please show us the evidence to refute their assertions, I'd love to see it...

 

The simple fact that ice has gravitational force is not news.
The seas are high around Greenland's ice cap and that of Antarctica.
As that ice melts adding to global sea level rise, then we should add in the lowering of the seas around those melting ice caps and the consequent rise elsewhere to global average sea level.

Headlines are for suckers.

not to worry
as/re noaa's ncdc the global land and sea temperatures are currently falling
not by much compared to the supposed 7 degree drop over 50 years during a D.O. event
(for which, causation remains obscure)

 

And since the headline seems to be the only thing that you latched onto, what does that tell you?

 

lol

 

Yes, they are. They have been dropping in more than half the world's land masses, and have been for the past six months. We call this phenomenon "winter." But look out! Come March there may be a new phenomenon.

 

sculptor said: ↑
as/re noaa's ncdc the global land and sea temperatures are currently falling

ok
oops
I should have posted:
global land and sea temperatures are currently falling for the last 10 years
............
Don't give away your long underwear
sooner or later the earth will see another dansgaard event
and depending on when---then--we may all feel it as well.

.......
-18C here yestermorn this cold weather dries out my hands and has my left nostril blowing blood
..........
c'mon March

 

Ok you all understand now with members help that the ice melts in effect making a decrease in the mass at the poles, like I stated without knowing this , and only by the Melon example did I consider this.

Consider the present state of the equator at an equal pressure of gravity to form, when mass is removed from north or south, the equal force of the equator will no longer be so equal. The force difference created , by the North and South loss of mass, will allow the equator to contract, it is Physics and the action and reaction to forces, You can't change a force and have no opposing reaction to the change of force. We have already noticed the start tot he change .

I quote - ''bulge had been declining, but since 1998 the bulge has increased, possibly due to redistribution of ocean mass via currents.[2]''

I am predicting and have started to try to calculate the maths, that the Earth will become over time more spherical.

Land mass will either concave or convex depending on longitude and latitude positions.
It may not be at an instance, but I have the Northern coast of Scotland will rise compared to sea level and equator mass will lower compared to see level.

 

Again, no, you are incorrect. The North pole has a floating ice cap. Melting it does not change mass. The water is still there.[/QUOTE]

 

Warmest year on record so far: 2010
So at best you could claim they have been falling for the past 4 years. (And it looks like 2014 will set a record as well, which means that temperatures have been rising, not falling, all that time.)

I was in New York for Christmas. Almost 60F on Christmas day.

 

[/QUOTE]
The mass is being distributed around the planet, the displacement of mass equals displacement of force.

 

''An unusual property of ice frozen at atmospheric pressure is that the solid is approximately 8.3% less dense than liquid water. The density of ice is 0.9167 g/cm3 at 0 °C,[3] whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form thehexagonalcrystals[4] of ice as the freezing point is reached. This is due to hydrogen bonding dominating the intermolecular forces, which results in a packing of molecules less compact in the solid. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature and has a value of 0.9340 g/cm³ at −180 °C (93 K).[5]''

Does this imply that water is heavier when in an unfrozen state than a frozen state?

Does this imply that frozen is water in the transition of energy loss by entropy means being greater than the entropy gain by entropy means?

 

ain't my numbers, they're from the ncdc, and yes, if you chart the cooling trend for last 4 years only, it has steepened
.........
regional
we had our coldest summer on record this past year
and that's from the local weather team
...........
none of which can compete with a dansgaard event
.....
I still have hopes that we're in a superinterglacial, maybe a few decades of cooling, then with the help of a little agw, a nice warm few centuries-millennia of warmth and ice melt.

 

For someone who persistently claims to have learned some science this is a remarkably dumb question.
1 kg of water will weigh 1 kg whether frozen or not.

And this is a remarkably meaningless spam of ungrammatical word salad.

 

If I remember correctly, when water freezes the molecules expand, so even though there is 1kg of water and still 1 kg of ice , per square inch there must be change because it has expanded,

example 1 cm3 of water , expanded 1.1 cm3, so if i take 1cm3 of the expanded frozen water , i get .1 less water?

Ever thought I might be also just trying to learn more?

Also what you refer to has word salad is the explanation of Gravity. I believe all mass has an energy , and the energy is attracted to other mass energies. I believe that water freezing is a loss by entropy means of this energy to a greater force than the masses own self force to contain or replace that energy by entropy means.
Gravity clearly can be seen extracting the energy out of water, making frozen water, and then by entropy means of thermodynamic increase equal to the extracting force, we can clearly see that the energy loss replacement returns the ice back to water its origin of original state.

 

The utter drivel you've written below shows that you're not:

I will say one thing for you: every time I think you can't come up with any worse bullsh*t you manage to surprise me.