So I did a little experiment.......

gfm7175 wrote:
Well, sort of... Pay attention science deniers:

So, I took a Nalgene brand 48oz wide-mouth plastic bottle and I put a whole tray of ice into it (16 ice cubes). I then filled it up to the 48oz line with cold water. After 2.5 hours, I took a look at the bottle before taking a drink from it. The ice cubes were no longer there.

The water level was...... SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!! ........

... STILL at 48oz...

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Well, sort of... Pay attention science deniers:

So, I took a Nalgene brand 48oz wide-mouth plastic bottle and I put a whole tray of ice into it (16 ice cubes). I then filled it up to the 48oz line with cold water. After 2.5 hours, I took a look at the bottle before taking a drink from it. The ice cubes were no longer there.

The water level was...... SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!! ........

... STILL at 48oz...

Did you use tap water or natural saline sea water?

Aaaahhh, that might be the problem.

.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Well, sort of... Pay attention science deniers:

So, I took a Nalgene brand 48oz wide-mouth plastic bottle and I put a whole tray of ice into it (16 ice cubes). I then filled it up to the 48oz line with cold water. After 2.5 hours, I took a look at the bottle before taking a drink from it. The ice cubes were no longer there.

The water level was...... SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!! ........

... STILL at 48oz...

Did you use tap water or natural saline sea water?

Aaaahhh, that might be the problem.

.

I used water from my well at home...

damnit... experiment ruined...

gfm7175 wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Well, sort of... Pay attention science deniers:

So, I took a Nalgene brand 48oz wide-mouth plastic bottle and I put a whole tray of ice into it (16 ice cubes). I then filled it up to the 48oz line with cold water. After 2.5 hours, I took a look at the bottle before taking a drink from it. The ice cubes were no longer there.

The water level was...... SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!! ........

... STILL at 48oz...


I guess I shouldn't have been freaking out about water eventually gushing out of my bottle...

Edit: This also just reminded me of my debatepolitics.com days when ITN and I were getting under people's skins by telling them that they couldn't melt ice (that they were instead melting water).

James___ wrote: They found research"stimulating" and an uplifting experience.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: They found research"stimulating" and an uplifting experience.

If you are ever going to discuss sea level rise, have a ball! (specifically, a sea level ball)

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

On the question of sea-level rise, I have been prompted to examine Perth a bit more closely and I discovered that the final construction for Victoria Quay was completed in 1897.



I give that a rough estimate of 123 years ago. Since then only buildings, shelters and surfacing (like adding parking lots) has been changed.

This is what the water level was like relative to Victoria Quay in 1927:



... and this is how it appears today:



I have therefore updated the "Ways to Verify there is no Discernible Sea Level Rise" page on Politiplex to include this (Entry #5) ... but I also encourage everyone to take a quick glance at Victoria Quay on Google Maps and sort of confirm in the mind.

.

gfm7175 wrote:

Indeed you are correct. I see no discernible sea level rise there.

James___ wrote: Umm, that's Perth and according to Australia, sea level there has risen.

James___ wrote: By the way, it also looks like it has risen.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Umm, that's Perth and according to Australia, sea level there has risen.

One can only be of that position by denying photographic evidence to the contrary.

Besides, Australia cannot authoritatively claim that the sea level has risen for them but not for anyone else. Photographic evidence shows the same lack of sea level rise for other places. I don't know if you are familiar with the dynamics of water but it's either all of the ocean rises or none of it does.

James___ wrote: By the way, it also looks like it has risen.

It quite clearly appears to have not risen any in the last 123 years.

Take a look at RAF base Gan, built at an elevation more or less around 6-feet above sea level in 1940 and the sea level at what is now Gan Airport today hasn't changed to any perceptible extent.

.

He and his team had already surveyed 13 small islands in the Maldives, before the tsunami in 2002 and 2003, so they were in a perfect position to assess the effects of the tsunami.

The first thing Kench and his team discovered was that the tsunami was not nearly as high at the Maldives as along other coasts. That's because there is no continental shelf along which the waves could build up and break.

Instead, says Kench, the highest in the series of waves from the Great Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake were only about 3 metres, which washed over the 1.5 to 2 metre-high islands and then kept racing toward Africa.

"There weren't these thundering walls of water crashing across the islands," says Kench. "Nevertheless, they all went underwater."

The islands were also spared any backwash, which doubled the scouring effect elsewhere, Kench says.

On the contrary, the tsunami scoured only the eastern sides of the islands, where it struck and carried the coral beach sand over the islands. As much as 30 centimetres of sand was deposited on top of one island, with the others gaining 5 to 10 centimetres.
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/03/17/1594485.htm

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Umm, that's Perth and according to Australia, sea level there has risen.

One can only be of that position by denying photographic evidence to the contrary.

Besides, Australia cannot authoritatively claim that the sea level has risen for them but not for anyone else. Photographic evidence shows the same lack of sea level rise for other places. I don't know if you are familiar with the dynamics of water but it's either all of the ocean rises or none of it does.

James___ wrote: By the way, it also looks like it has risen.

It quite clearly appears to have not risen any in the last 123 years.

Take a look at RAF base Gan, built at an elevation more or less around 6-feet above sea level in 1940 and the sea level at what is now Gan Airport today hasn't changed to any perceptible extent.

.

This "holy link" will explain why the Maldives elevation increased after the 2004 earthquake in the Indian Ocean. I hope you guys are literate. But because you cry at having to read something for yourselves. Just too d@mned lazy. Just so you know it's a "holy quote".

He and his team had already surveyed 13 small islands in the Maldives, before the tsunami in 2002 and 2003, so they were in a perfect position to assess the effects of the tsunami.

The first thing Kench and his team discovered was that the tsunami was not nearly as high at the Maldives as along other coasts. That's because there is no continental shelf along which the waves could build up and break.

Instead, says Kench, the highest in the series of waves from the Great Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake were only about 3 metres, which washed over the 1.5 to 2 metre-high islands and then kept racing toward Africa.

"There weren't these thundering walls of water crashing across the islands," says Kench. "Nevertheless, they all went underwater."

The islands were also spared any backwash, which doubled the scouring effect elsewhere, Kench says.

On the contrary, the tsunami scoured only the eastern sides of the islands, where it struck and carried the coral beach sand over the islands. As much as 30 centimetres of sand was deposited on top of one island, with the others gaining 5 to 10 centimetres.
https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/03/17/1594485.htm

And IBDM, it's not my job to educate you guys when you have no interest in learning. You guys just want people jumping through hoops for you.
And since you don't understand how England could sink while Scotland is rising, appearing that's where tectonic plate rebound is having 2 different effects. England was higher in elevation when countries like Norway had lower elevations because of the mass of glaciers around the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere.
And that kind of shows a tipping point for tectonic plate rebound. Can I have some of what you 're smoking? I mean you guys don't seem to understand either Earth sciences or geology.

p.s., 230,000 people died because of that tsunami but you didn't know anyone so it didn't matter, right? That mantra gets old. The coronavirus is at 563,000 and only 136,000 in the US.
I tend to find that kind of attitude disgusting. You know, it didn't happen to someone you know.

James___ wrote: And IBDM, it's not my job to educate you guys when you have no interest in learning.

James___ wrote: You guys just want people jumping through hoops for you.

James___ wrote: And since you don't understand how England could sink while Scotland is rising, appearing that's where tectonic plate rebound is having 2 different effects.

James___ wrote: p.s., 230,000 people died because of that tsunami but you didn't know anyone so it didn't matter, right?

James___ wrote: The coronavirus is at 563,000 and only 136,000 in the US.