02 Jan 07
Originally posted by AcemasterYes, but that on;y represents sea ice - not the ice shelves of Antarctica or Greenland.
Here is an easy project: Fill a bowl with ice and pour water into the bowl, all the way to the brim. Wait for the ice to melt. It won't flood.
Oh! I'm sorry. I had a fact wrong. If the icecaps started to melt today, in 200 years it would raise the water by 1 1/2 inch. I like that stat even better, don't you?
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by AcemasterIt doesn't work
See: http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec
If this doesn't work tell me.
And there is no reason to get rude. I haven't critizied anyone except Al Gore.
Here is a good reference to a real piece of science though;
Title: The age and accretion of the Earth
Author(s): Zhang YX
Source: EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS 59 (1-4): 235-263 NOV 2002
Document Type: Review
Language: English
Cited References: 150 Times Cited: 3 Find Related Records Information
Abstract: Culminating a long series of effort, the monumental work of Patterson [Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 10 (1956) 230] showed that the age of the earth was close to that of most meteorites at 4.55 Ga. Later refinements have consistently arrived at a younger age for the earth, shedding light on the accretion history of the earth. A review of progresses after Patterson's work is presented on ages for core formation, Xe closure, and formation of the earliest crust using U-Pb, Hf-W, I-Pu-U-Xe, Sm-Nd, and Nb-Zr systems; consistency among the systems is examined; and discrepancies are decoded. The combination of U-Pb and Hf-W systems can rule out some models of rapid earth accretion (at similar to4.55 Ga) followed by smooth and continuous core formation, but allow at least two different models. I-Pu-U-Xe systematics reveals a consistent and young age of 4.45 +/- 0.02 Ga for Xe closure. The systematics also allows an estimation of primordial Xe-130 concentration in the bulk silicate earth to be 0.034
A gigayear is 1 billion years. Even so, please explain on a "young earth" why we can trace back nearly 700,000 years through ice core, simply by the year on year stratification, or over 42,000 years using lake sediments?
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by AcemasterRising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true. [...]
Throw some evidence at me... I'd be glad to try and kill it.
Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/taxonomy/term/98
02 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Acemasterthe icecaps melting will only raise the level of water by 36 feet.
1. No.
2. It has been caculated that if we continue on the same level of pollution that we are on now, the icecaps will melt in about 200 years. Even though that sounds bad for everyone 200 years in the future, the icecaps melting will only raise the level of water by 36 feet.
3. I never said that the fumes aren't toxic. I said that they won't cause global warming. Refer to answer #2.
Have you ever been to the beach? Well, imagine yourself right there at the edge of the sea. Now imagine if the water were 36 feet higher. Now turn around, back to the sea, and think how much land would get flooded with a 36 foot rise in sea level.
Let's suppose the land rises at an angle of say 15 degrees from the water. If you draw a right triangle with a 15 degree angle, the hypotenuse being the ground, one side being the rise in sea level, the other side will be the horizontal amount of land lost.
tan (15 degrees) = 36 feet/x
x = 36 feet/tan (15 degrees)
x = 36 feet/(0.268)
x = ~130 feet
That 36 foot rise in sea level, if correct, will pull the oceans 130 feet onto the beach. Any building close to the water will be flooded. Significant? Depends on your opinion, I suppose. What do you think would happen to this fishing village if the sea were to rise 36 feet?
http://www.keithv.com/cambridge/large/fishing_village.jpg
How about this port city?
http://uranus.ee.auth.gr/new/images/port.jpg
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by Ian68Water is at its densest at 4C. Below that temperature the van der waal's forces (the weak electrical attractions between the slightly negatively charged oxygen atoms, and the slightly positively charged hydrogen atoms) hold the molecules apart. At 4C the energy possessed by the molecules (in terms of movement - i.e. heat) is roughly equal to the strength of the van der waals forces, the molecules move about randomly. Above 4C the molecules move about faster, hitting the edges of the containing vessel with increased force, i.e. pressure. Since the increased energy in the water has to be balanced by something (in this case gravity) the water level rises, as the water expands.
Thanks. Evidently there are a few more exceptions to that rule.
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by Acemaster1. Not proven? You must be really out of the loop.
1. Not proven
2a. Al Gore is a total airhead who doesn't know what he's talking about.
2b. I guess you haven't figured out that the media isn't always truthful.
2. Does not in any way refute or diminish the science that lies underneath. Though i do agree he does not know what he's talking about.
3. The Corporate Media isn't always truthful. Duh! Still irrelevant.
02 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AcemasterExamples please. I think you are just trying to dodge the issues and ignore the hard science here. You've done little more than mumble a few buzzwords here and there.
I just want to know. If it's from television then there is a very good chance it's wrong.
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe ice "lines" are made by hot, cold, hot, cold, etc., not summer, winter, summer, winter, ect. It can go from hot to cold and back and forth sveral times a day. Meaning, it is not proof.
Even so, please explain on a "young earth" why we can trace back nearly 700,000 years through ice core, simply by the year on year stratification, or over 42,000 years using lake sediments?[/b]
02 Jan 07
This is just silly--leave scientific debates for scientists. There's nothing more annoying to me in public policy/debate than politicians and laymen doing armchair science. If you're interested in participating in the issue in any meaningful way, get a grant and study the issue and publish your work in a peer reviewed journal.
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are a bit backwards there. Water expands when it freezes because ice catches a bit of air in the middle. When it melts, there won't be near as much water as there was ice.
However water itself expands as it gets warmer as long as it starts at 4 degrees C or higher.
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by eldragonfly1. No, it has not been proven.
1. Not proven? You must be really out of the loop.
2. Does not in any way refute or diminish the science that lies underneath. Though i do agree he does not know what he's talking about.
3. The Corporate Media isn't always truthful. Duh! Still irrelevant.
2. But just because Gore made a movie about it doesn't prove a thing.
3. Not irrelevant! Because it isn't always truthful, it means that not everey thing it says is true. Some things are just made to scare you, or minor situations are made into huge, terrible disasters.
02 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AcemasterIn the antarctic? Yes, maybe from -80 to -74. Certainly not enough to promote any melting! Meaning? You don't know what you're talking about!
The ice "lines" are made by hot, cold, hot, cold, etc., not summer, winter, summer, winter, ect. It can go from hot to cold and back and forth sveral times a day. Meaning, it is not proof.
[edit; this quote is for the arctic, the antarctic is even colder;
"The mean temperatures of the cells range from near O°C in summer to below −45°C in winter. Monthly averages range down to −40°C for the central Arctic and −29°C for the peripheral seas."
From Lindsay & Rothrock (1994), Journal of Climate ]