Poll Is it happening?-GlobalWarming

[Tommy]

The ice displaces water, and if it melts, there will actually be no net increase in sea levels.

Not true. Ice displaces it weight in water, but not it's volume, since ice has less density. Melting the artic icecap WILL raise sea levels. This is already happening.

Also, a warmer planet hastens evaporation, resulting in lower levels in freshwater lakes and rivers, as well as the water table, that are above sea level, causing water shortages that affect drinking water supplies and adversely affect agriculture on a global scale.

Now, (m)ethanol is most useful as a fuel, but when burning it, the CO2 will enter the atmosphere again(**). This isn't necessarily bad, as we need a good alternative for gasoline, but it doesn't reduce the amount of CO2 in the end.

While burning bio fuels may release as much CO2 as burning fossil fuels, the net effect is very different. Bio fuels are made from carbon that is in circulation in the atmosphere or the surface of the Earth. Fossil fuels contain carbon that has been stored inside the Earth, not in circulation. Burning fossil fuels increases the free carbon in the biosphere, burning bio fuels does not.

Most wild animals know better than to defecate where they live. When will humans learn to do as much?

 

[Bj]

Not true. Ice displaces it weight in water, but not it's volume, since ice has less density. Melting the artic icecap WILL raise sea levels. This is already happening.

I am not so sure, I am going to try it in a cup of water with ice cubes. (in a microwave of course to speed up the process...)


Edit;

Will_a_glass_of_water_overflow_if_the_ice_cubes_melt

Also, my microwaved glass didn't overflow.

Why the sea levels are raising is because of the melting snow on top mountains.

 

[pete.dakota]

I basically refer to climate science and its so called evidences. Climate science has become a pseudo-science partly, by turning into soothsaying. The Earths climate history is not very well known. Of course there are numbers, books and a lot of guesswork, but no real knowledge. The future of our climate is anything but certain. We observe the current climate but we don't undertsand it in detail.

So, you're saying that because climate change research is just 'guesswork', we should write it all off, ignore it, continue farting out CO2 at incredible rates and not worry about what we're doing to the planet? All the 'so called evidences' (i.e, credible, scientific research) are bogus and should not be considered?

What evidence can you cite claiming that the research and numbers the IPCC has correlated on climate change aren't credible?

Graphics, guesswork and climate models never is strong evidence.

If you had strong evidence as to the non-existence of climate change, would you not put it in a graph or climate model? By what means would you put forward your denouncing evidence? And how would we not be convinced that your claim itself is not just 'guess work' if you're not going to use graphs, documents or climate models?

...there is no evidence which shows that we're facing an unusual man-made global warming or not.

I hate to do it to you, as your position on linked and copied evidence has been made clear, but: Scientific opinion on climate change. Don't consider it a Wiki page, rather use the citations as links to the original sources. All of which are credible.

A quote from one of the co-lead authors of an IPCC research report in 2007:

"We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming,"

Just because the mean temperature anomaly "number" and the CO2 percentage "number" are man-made values, certainly does not mean they aren't accurate representations of their actual 'non-numerical' values; if there are such things, or means of measurement. You seem to be assuming human arrogance as the only reason we blame ourselves for an increase in warming. That is no basis to ignore what is strong, and credible evidence; none of which is 'just guess work'. You prove otherwise...

 

[Moonwalker]

What you expect, is the thermometer of God.

Close but still not correct. It's the other way round I guess.

Some people kneel down in front of scientists and the IPCC and believe that the thermometer of God has been discovered finally. While scientists and politics know everything finally, we just have to act now, otherwise it's too late, almost game over.

But honestly, knowbody knows which climate is normal, which one is non-normal.

That's my final statement on that topic by the way, since it always turns into a personal flame war at the end, which has partly started already.

 

[Tommy]

I am not so sure, I am going to try it in a cup of water with ice cubes. (in a microwave of course to speed up the process...)

Using the microwave invalidates the test, since you will be warming the water. Water expands above the freezing point as well as below it. While performing that test with a microwave will seem to prove my point, it's not really a valid test. You would need to make sure that the temperature of the water is the same before and after the ice melts to get valid results.

A simple, but not entirely accurate, test would be to fill a glass with ice, then add warm water until the water is about to overflow. Some of the ice should be floating above the rim of the glass. As the ice melts, the glass will overflow in spite of the fact that the water has cooled and should occupy less volume.

 

[Bj]

That's my final statement on that topic by the way, since it always turns into a personal flame war at the end, which has partly started already.

Sorry buddy, but all we are doing is making conversation.

Lets concentrate more on the best possible solution to removing CO2.

Is launching chunks of frozen CO2 plausible? Or is Earth destined to be like Venus.

 

[pete.dakota]

Let's drop a giant ice cube into the ocean 'every now-and-then', thus solving the problem once and for all?

ONCE AND FOR ALL!

 

[Urwumpe]

Some people kneel down in front of scientists and the IPCC and believe that the thermometer of God has been discovered finally. While scientists and politics know everything finally, we just have to act now, otherwise it's too late, almost game over.

Some people also bow down in front of anybody telling them that good times will last forever and nothing will have consequences.

But honestly, nobody knows which climate is normal, which one is non-normal.

Yes? Farmers will tell you pretty quickly which climate they consider normal for being able to produce food. They feel a bad harvest in their bank accounts.

A climate, which also results in sea levels higher as ever in the history of civilization is sure harmful.

That's my final statement on that topic by the way, since it always turns into a personal flame war at the end, which has partly started already.

The consequences of excessive trolling is also some sort of forum global warming.

 

[Bj]

A simple, but not entirely accurate, test would be to fill a glass with ice, then add warm water until the water is about to overflow. Some of the ice should be floating above the rim of the glass. As the ice melts, the glass will overflow in spite of the fact that the water has cooled and should occupy less volume.

Alright Ill do it your way then, but I still don't think that it would make the glass overfill.

Isn't there some way to tell how much matter expands and contracts based on its molecular density?

 

[Tommy]

BJ, keep in mind that 10 percent of an iceberg is above the surface of the water, that's the portion of the ice that raises the water level.

Isn't there some way to tell how much matter expands and contracts based on its molecular density?

I'm sure there is, but keep in mind that water is a unique case since it expands both above and below the freezing point. Most things only expand when they get warmer, and contract when the colder.

Global warming affects more than just farmers, too. I live in northern Wisconsin, and GW has had a serious affect on the local economy. Lower levels in lakes and rivers has led to poor fishing conditions, and caused a reduction in tourism during the summer. Less snow (and a shorter season) has led to reduced levels of snowmobile tourism in the winter. All the local resorts have been suffering, and several have closed.

 

[Eagle]

I dunno, these last few years have been pretty tame. Like the weather in the early 90's and late 80's. Definitely not as warm as the late 90's.

I will be very surprised if AGW is a public issue 8 years from now.

 

[Bj]

BJ, keep in mind that 10 percent of an iceberg is above the surface of the water, that's the portion of the ice that raises the water level.

Ahhh correct, but ice is solid and more dense than liquid.

Here are some pics; Sorry for being so large but I wanted to zoom in on the reading.

I put 12 ice cubes into this measuring cup. 12 ice cubes is almost a half liter.


First image is the 1 liter with 12 ice cubes at 140 degree F.

This next image is with melted ice cubes. The temperature of the water is now roughly 100 F. (cant get accurate measurement because temperature went too low.)

 

[Eagle]

Ahhh correct, but ice is solid and more dense than liquid.

Um, no. Not ever. (That is unless I feel like being exceedingly generous on the technicality that if you thermally expand water enough for it to be less dense than ice and maybe thermally contract ice by putting its temperature near absolute zero. But the water would vaporize instantly at that atmospheric pressure and its quite unrealistic in almost every way)

Float something in water. The the weight of water displaced is exactly the same as the weight of the object.

In order to float, ice MUST be less dense than water.

Also floating sea ice has no effect on sea levels, because it melts into exactly the same volume of water it displaces.

 

[Tommy]

Also floating sea ice has no effect on sea levels, because it melts into the same volume of water it displaces.

I stand corrected. My initial premise was based on my experience making Ice Cream, and it didn't occur to me that the salt lowers the density of the water, causing it to expand. Doh!

 

[Bj]

In order to float, ice MUST be less dense than water.

Hmmm... true, but according to this;

liquid is less dense then solids, but your also right, ice has to be less dense to float.

The only explanation I can think of is that the picture above is comparing objects in relative temperatures.

Ice is significantly cooler than liquid water but somehow as the ice melts it decompresses....
gaaa to much math :chair:

 

[Pilot7893]

Another inapt poll..
Of course 'GW' exists, and of course it's a problem... Nobody credible denies the apparentness of global warning, and, similarly, nobody will claim it isn't a problem.

Obviously you haven't heard of Fox News. Oh wait, they're not that credible anymore, are they?

 

[Tommy]

As I pointed out earlier, Water is a unique case and is at it's most dense at the freezing point and expands above and below that point.

 

[RisingFury]

Water is at it's most dense point at 4°C. That's 4 degrees higher then the point where it freezes.

Also, if you take a look at molecules that are similar in weight, they have significantly lower freezing and boiling points - CO2, being heavier then water, is a gas, which is odd.

Both of these have to do with hydrogen bonds within water.

Water - H2O is shaped sideways, like this:

...O...
H.....H

(Don't mind the dots, they're there to keep the formatting - spaces don't work.)

When another molecule of water gets near, the hydrogen atoms tend to attract each other. That means you need to put in significantly more energy to get the molecules moving faster - turning them into gas.

These bonds are strongest at 4°C. After that, they start to degrade and the molecules move further apart. If they do that, you have less mass in the same volume, meaning lower density.
That's why ice floats on the water and that's why water as a substance is of such significant interest.

 

[Urwumpe]

BJ: Ice is a sort of crystal, these don't get the smallest possible package. You have some special electrostatic connections between the atom pairs there, which push the atoms away a bit. Water is densest at about 4°C at normal pressure, if I remember correctly - that's why freshwater fish survive in the winter, as the lowest region of the lake never freezes.

 

[Omhra]

The claim that GW is not occurring is starting to sound repetitive in its ignorance of fact... The flawed logic is becoming cumbersome.
The Cracks are showing...

For a scientific discussion the burden of proof is for the ignorant.

Those of us who think GW is occurring don't do it "just" because there is no perfect evidence that it is NOT happening; yet, this is the Logic you give us.
You say "you can't prove 100% that is occurring and I will use the 20% error margin to assume that its not happening and you are an alarmist fanatic for saying it is occurring"...

If I know one thing is that my neighborhood should be under 3 feet of snow by now... and I have both my 13feet tall, 19 foot wide doors open on my warehouse because its so "nice" out.