|
Post by parfive on Jun 22, 2012 23:48:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 22, 2012 23:50:00 GMT -5
LMAO!! Parfive you crack me up:).
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 23, 2012 0:00:08 GMT -5
Helen - Ice is less dense than water, so it floats. The volume of ice above the water will raise the water level (a little) when it melts.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 0:03:01 GMT -5
Yah... I saw that. I used a regular glass, and used the top of the rock as the 'line'... my melting ice cubes drowned my rock... by only a little bit... but if that rock were a land mass... entire coastlines would be gone. O.o.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 0:18:23 GMT -5
LMAO!!! I just realized that I didn't use a rock... I used a piece of ancient iron something hubby found... it actually started to dissolve particles into the water, doh. I have to do this again with a rock:P.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 23, 2012 0:42:14 GMT -5
“but if that rock were a land mass... entire coastlines would be gone.” And you’re only foolin’ with ice that’s already in the water. Any ice that’s stranded on land - glaciers, Greenland, Antarctica - would add ALL its volume to your water level, so melt a few cubes in another cup and then pour that in too. ;D And don't forget that water expands when it warms up - the oceans too - so throw your cup in the microwave and see if you can measure that as well. Miami . . . glug glug ;D
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 2:01:47 GMT -5
I'm doing the experiment again, with a real rock, in a pyrex cup:). As for ice ABOVE the water, except for Greenland, most ice is floating icebergs, which have already displaced the water. The ice on Greenland I'm not 100% convinced is mostly above the water, PLUS, as snow falls on it, it melts and makes more ice, so it's not really MELTING. Greenland was called Greenland by the vikings because there is evidence that they could grow GRAPES there... if it all melts, it wouldn't necessarily be unusual, the earth has always cycled from freeze to thaw via ice ages, but it would permanently destroy a lot of cities worldwide and create new beachfront property. New Orleans would be underwater, but even Miami averages 6' above sea level. If ALL of Greenland melts at once, they say it would only raise sea level 20'. Orlando averages 106 feet above sea level, we're not in trouble even if all of Greenland melts tomorrow. www.livescience.com/6462-greenland-rising-rapidly-ice-melts.htmlPer the above LiveScience article, the pace of melting is only 2" per year sea rise projected to start in 2025. With an average 6' above sea level, Miami won't be underwater for at least another 40 years, and still be habitable as a city for at least 20 more years. Plenty of time for people to move. Rising seas would not impact that many US cities, I forgot where I saw it, but only 6 US cities will be under water if Greenland melts anyway. And, since ice ages are an earth cycle that we've been able to geologically measure, it's going to happen regardless. Changing weather and increased hurricanes as well as earthquakes, fires and droughts are the far greater danger, and it appears more immediate ones if you look at the satellite images. I still can't get over how FAST the earth has changed.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 2:38:34 GMT -5
I thought I would mention that this isn't a political discussion. Regardless of whether man is causing climate change, nature does climate change anyway, and we are arguably still coming out of our last "Little Ice Age" from 1250-1850 AD: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_AgeThe reasons for the climate change matter less than the fact that we are going through climate change, and it's only going to get worse, whether manmade or natural. An interesting theory with 1000-1500 year 'Bond Events': en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 23, 2012 3:12:01 GMT -5
"I thought I would mention that this isn't a political discussion." Regardless, I moved it over here from the fire thread. "The ice on Greenland I'm not 100% convinced is mostly above the water" Huh? ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) "Per the above LiveScience article, the pace of melting is only 2" per year sea rise projected to start in 2025." Wrong. Go back and read it again.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jun 23, 2012 9:22:46 GMT -5
Explain why they are finding the same fossils in the arctic that they find in the south. Mother nature will do what she wants to.
|
|
itsandbits
freely admits to licking rocks
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_pink.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_pink.png)
Member since March 2012
Posts: 825
|
Post by itsandbits on Jun 23, 2012 14:11:57 GMT -5
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Jun 23, 2012 14:47:25 GMT -5
Seems that 3,400 years ago there was less ice in the Arctic than there is now, Obviously, this would indicate a warmer climate than the present one. Must have been billions of buffalo farts from millions of buffalo, or maybe mankind was rubbing too many sticks together. . . 3,400 years ain't even a blip in geological time. Archaeologists Discover Lost Civilization Under The Melting Arctic www.forevergeek.com/2010/09/artic_melts_lost_civilization_discovered/I want to clarify that though I am not a subscriber to the extremist views of man-caused global warming / climate change, I do believe that we need to be diligent in protecting our environment. We do need to advance alternative energy, but not in the un-productive way presently being attempted. Imo, clean air and water are the most important thing to stay focused on, Airborne contaminates, heavy metals, pesticides etc. in the water, not CO2 levels.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 15:28:58 GMT -5
"I thought I would mention that this isn't a political discussion." Regardless, I moved it over here from the fire thread. "The ice on Greenland I'm not 100% convinced is mostly above the water" Huh? ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) "Per the above LiveScience article, the pace of melting is only 2" per year sea rise projected to start in 2025." Wrong. Go back and read it again. What I meant by that is, if you float an ice cube directly in water, and it's not propped up on something else, it ALREADY displaces the amount of water it will be melted. And that bore out in my pyrex cup/rock/ice cube experiment last nite. Speaking of which experiment... I filled 8 oz pyrex cup to 1/2 cup (4oz water) over a rock that ended exactly at the 8oz line. Then I filled rest up with ice so that the waterline was exactly at the 8oz line, level with top of rock. I poked the ice into the water, it wasn't propped on anything, so it would do whatever displacement it would do even with part of the ice sticking out of the cup. At full melt... it still was at 8 oz line. Now the line is relatively thick (1 mm), so it MAY have been a bit higher once melted. But if so, it was very very minute. However, a LITTLE bit higher would definitely submerge things spread out over the surface area of the entire earth. 20' increase from the melt makes perfect sense, given that at it's deepest, the ocean is roughly 36,000 feet deep. As for 'wrong, read it again", that's what it says... it's rising 1" per year and expecting to be 2" per year starting in 2025: "Some coastal areas are going up by nearly 1 inch per year, the scientists announced today. If current trends continue, that could accelerate to as much as 2 inches per year by 2025, said Tim Dixon, professor of geophysics at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS) and principal investigator of the study." So Miami would be underwater in give or take 40 years or so at that rate. But at the current pace of increasing natural disasters due to climate changes (natural AND manmade), I'm wondering how long before we have serious population reduction.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 15:38:09 GMT -5
Seems that 3,400 years ago there was less ice in the Arctic than there is now, Obviously, this would indicate a warmer climate than the present one. Must have been billions of buffalo farts from millions of buffalo, or maybe mankind was rubbing too many sticks together. . . 3,400 years ain't even a blip in geological time. Archaeologists Discover Lost Civilization Under The Melting Arctic www.forevergeek.com/2010/09/artic_melts_lost_civilization_discovered/Greenland, which is under 3' of ice that is melting... was called that because the Vikings FARMED there (some say grapes, some say wheat). We have a 'little ice age' every 1000-1500 years. But here's what Scientific American says about global warming: www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=cold-winter-doesnt-mean-global-warm-2009-02-12"So how to explain the relatively colder winters we've had in the latter half of this decade? Goddard attributes them to La Niña, a cyclical pattern of cold sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. La Niña in the first half of 2008, followed by a neutral period in the latter half, likely had something to do with it, Heim says, but adds that global warming is about long-term, rising temperature trends over time. "It's kind of like a drunk driver," Heim says. "The car is weaving back and forth, but it's still progressing forward."" But it's no surprise that we're getting warmer, since the last 'little ice age' lasted from 1250-1850. The question I started this with is why does the earth look browner by the year via satellite?
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Jun 23, 2012 15:40:35 GMT -5
"The question I started this with is why does the earth look browner by the year via satellite?" Hmmm, maybe Monsanto is putting round-up in the chem trails. . . ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jun 23, 2012 16:55:32 GMT -5
I want to clarify that though I am not a subscriber to the extremist views of man-caused global warming / climate change, I do believe that we need to be diligent in protecting our environment. We do need to advance alternative energy, but not in the un-productive way presently being attempted. Imo, clean air and water are the most important thing to stay focused on, Airborne contaminates, heavy metals, pesticides etc. in the water, not CO2 levels. What's extremist about CO2 levels causing global warming? CO2 has been measurably rising, and burning fossil fuels does produce CO2, as any combustion does. That's not an opinion. But if we're warming ANYWAY, unless it kills us, the question is more one of, does it matter if we die faster or slower: environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 23, 2012 17:46:30 GMT -5
Helen – The 1” and 2” figures you keep repeating are NOT a measure of sea level rise. They’re a measure of the land rebounding, rising up. The first two paragraphs of your link explain that quite clearly.
And where did you get “Greenland, which is under 3' of ice that is melting...” ?
From the second paragraph: “A vast ice cap covers much of Greenland, in some places up to 1.2 miles (2 km) thick.”
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Jun 23, 2012 18:06:39 GMT -5
Helen, I do not doubt, that CO2 levels are rising. That is proven science. When I say extremist views, I am referring to the theory (that we are being incorrectly told is 'settled science') that this current upswing is entirely due to man's carbon emissions. Co2 has risen and fallen for eons in cycles we are incapable of comprehending. Obviously, we are adding to the emissions. The question is whether we are the primary cause, and imo the questionable science complete with with dubious data tainted by political agendas. . . falls short of convincing me that we need to take draconian measures that if realized could bring down the already shaky economies of the world. I do advocate a reasonable approach, but carbon credits and all the other politically charged wild-eyed hand wringing seem to be but a smoke screen as far as I am concerned. We should not abandon the use of fossil fuels before there is more definitive proof that we need to take such dire actions. Perhaps I am a flat-earther, but this is my current view, subject to revision if given credible cause. All the little graphs and charts look real convincing, but I do not feel the data used can be trusted to be accurate. I tend to agree with this fellow, published today, and a great read. Green ‘drivel’ exposed: The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Jun 23, 2012 20:12:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NatureNut on Jun 23, 2012 20:33:11 GMT -5
Isn't he the guy who invented the microwave? (oven, that is)
|
|