America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by wheelrite. 55 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Now this is interesting....
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
victor809 Offline
#1 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 8:50 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/antarctica-was-once-home-to-rain-forest
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 8:54 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
It was because of those people and their damn SUVs!
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 8:56 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
always wondered what the panic was with rising sea levels and stuff... if you put ice in a glass of water and let it melt the level doesn't change... I dunno... Think
victor809 Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 8:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
always wondered what the panic was with rising sea levels and stuff... if you put ice in a glass of water and let it melt the level doesn't change... I dunno... Think


Please tell me you are joking.
DrafterX Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:00 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
victor809 wrote:
Please tell me you are joking.



i'm serious man... try it... Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:03 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
Polar bears wanted it kept secret, but they now have the Caribbean to vacation in.
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:07 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
poor Fuzz.... Sad
victor809 Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
i'm serious man... try it... Mellow


Again, I hope you're joking.

There are two problems :

1 Sea water has salt in it. When it freezes the ice is pure water, which is less dense, leading to a percentage of the ice floating ABOVE the water (i believe 20%).

2 - There are chunks of ice which aren't on the water, but instead build off of land masses.
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:11 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
yes Victor.. just joking a little.. but I've heard that argument before... had to repeat it.. Laugh


I don't think it's gonna happen in the next few decades tho... Not talking
HockeyDad Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:13 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Polar bears wanted it kept secret, but they now have the Caribbean to vacation in.



French polar bears will occupy the French West Indies!
ZRX1200 Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:13 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Salt ice is more iceier.......


Goes great in margaritas!
victor809 Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:14 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
http://io9.com/5928966/greenlands-ice-sheet-melting-faster-than-weve-ever-seen

Who know. I don't personally care... but if you have kids it may be of significance to you.
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:17 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
victor809 wrote:
http://io9.com/5928966/greenlands-ice-sheet-melting-faster-than-weve-ever-seen

Who know. I don't personally care... but if you have kids it may be of significance to you.




prolly photochopped.... Mellow

who are we suppose to send money to..??
HockeyDad Offline
#14 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:17 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
victor809 wrote:
http://io9.com/5928966/greenlands-ice-sheet-melting-faster-than-weve-ever-seen

Who know. I don't personally care... but if you have kids it may be of significance to you.




YMCA swimming lessons. Problem solved. Panic averted.
ZRX1200 Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Al Gore sends his love.
HockeyDad Offline
#16 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:19 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Some people have advanced to the point of arrogance that they believe they can control the coming and going of ice ages. To them I say, send me your money.
victor809 Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I'm guessing that with the significant amount of water which would have to be released to make the antarctic a tropical rainforest again.... well, your house might be underwater HD.

Time to buy hill-top property.
DrafterX Offline
#18 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:24 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
victor809 wrote:
well, your house might be underwater HD.

.



but the fishing around it will be great..!! ThumpUp
tailgater Offline
#19 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:26 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
What's the argument here?

Drafter is correct, in that the melting ice (assuming we mean icebergs only) won't have any impact on the ocean levels. Just as melting ice cubes have no effect on water level in a glass.
None.
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.

But if the global temps rise, it won't affect icebergs alone. Land based ice from polar regions and especially glaciers would add to the sea levels when they melt or fall into the ocean (often in the form of new icebergs).

Some say the ocean will also rise due to thermal expansion, but this is a tricky one since water will both expand and contract with a rise in temperature depending on how cold it is. Water above 4 degrees C will expand with rising temperatures, but water below this will actually contract with a rise in temperature. And the water in the arctic and the antarctic is almost always below this. So the "global warming" would have to exclude the polar regions if thermal expansion were to have a significant effect.

It's important to understand the facts as they exist in context.
HockeyDad Offline
#20 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:26 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
victor809 wrote:
I'm guessing that with the significant amount of water which would have to be released to make the antarctic a tropical rainforest again.... well, your house might be underwater HD.

Time to buy hill-top property.



Do you really think I haven't already planned for this? Seriously, we globalists control everything. (including the heater coils under Antarctica)
ZRX1200 Offline
#21 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:30 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Heater coils? I thought you used chem trails?
tailgater Offline
#22 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:34 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Again, I hope you're joking.

There are two problems :

1 Sea water has salt in it. When it freezes the ice is pure water, which is less dense, leading to a percentage of the ice floating ABOVE the water (i believe 20%).

2 - There are chunks of ice which aren't on the water, but instead build off of land masses.



What are you saying in #1?

All ice is less dense than water. I don't recall the percentage, but the reason icebergs float is because it's ice and has nothing to do with the salt content.
Salt water is more dense (more buoyant) and the frozen (pure) water may float higher, but the salt and water ratios never change. The reason the water has a high salt content is partially due to the fact that some of the water froze. So when the water melts, the combination merely goes back to the original ratio.
We aren't creating or destroying matter (salt) here.
HockeyDad Offline
#23 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:34 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
ZRX1200 wrote:
Heater coils? I thought you used chem trails?



The heater coils are in case the carbon footprints don't work quick enough. We got a schedule to keep.
victor809 Offline
#24 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:38 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
What are you saying in #1?

All ice is less dense than water. I don't recall the percentage, but the reason icebergs float is because it's ice and has nothing to do with the salt content.
Salt water is more dense (more buoyant) and the frozen (pure) water may float higher, but the salt and water ratios never change. The reason the water has a high salt content is partially due to the fact that some of the water froze. So when the water melts, the combination merely goes back to the original ratio.
We aren't creating or destroying matter (salt) here.



When saltwater freezes it generally excludes the salt. I'm not 100% sure of the process, but the icebergs which form are mostly pure water.

Therefore you have denser saltwater with ice (already less dense than water) which is composed of fresh water (even less dense). This is why an iceberg will sit higher than a regular ice cube (and I believe it's about 20% exposure)
victor809 Offline
#25 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
What's the argument here?

Drafter is correct, in that the melting ice (assuming we mean icebergs only) won't have any impact on the ocean levels. Just as melting ice cubes have no effect on water level in a glass.
None.
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.

But if the global temps rise, it won't affect icebergs alone. Land based ice from polar regions and especially glaciers would add to the sea levels when they melt or fall into the ocean (often in the form of new icebergs).

Some say the ocean will also rise due to thermal expansion, but this is a tricky one since water will both expand and contract with a rise in temperature depending on how cold it is. Water above 4 degrees C will expand with rising temperatures, but water below this will actually contract with a rise in temperature. And the water in the arctic and the antarctic is almost always below this. So the "global warming" would have to exclude the polar regions if thermal expansion were to have a significant effect.

It's important to understand the facts as they exist in context.


See my statement above. There will be an increase in volume (due to the increased buoyancy of freshwater ice). It won't be the 20% of exposed ice (because the change in density as ice becomes water) but will be closer to the delta in density between salt water and fresh water.
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:56 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
victor809 wrote:
When saltwater freezes it generally excludes the salt. I'm not 100% sure of the process, but the icebergs which form are mostly pure water.



So how the heck are we supposed to have a proper panic without you being 100% sure?! Do we change the DEFCON level? Pack belongings quickly and head for high ground? Sell houses and buy boats?

WATERWORLD!
tailgater Offline
#27 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
When saltwater freezes it generally excludes the salt. I'm not 100% sure of the process, but the icebergs which form are mostly pure water.

Therefore you have denser saltwater with ice (already less dense than water) which is composed of fresh water (even less dense). This is why an iceberg will sit higher than a regular ice cube (and I believe it's about 20% exposure)


Yes, but when melted the net results are not altered. The water level won't rise, so none of this makes a difference.
The biggest influence will be land based chunks of ice falling into the ocean and/or melting.
And even if catastrophic, I won't be suddenly blessed with ocean front at the casa de tailgater.
tailgater Offline
#28 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
See my statement above. There will be an increase in volume (due to the increased buoyancy of freshwater ice). It won't be the 20% of exposed ice (because the change in density as ice becomes water) but will be closer to the delta in density between salt water and fresh water.


You do realize that the reasons icebergs float so "high" is due to their geometry, don't you?
The vast majority of the berg is below water.
Hence the term "that's only the tip of the iceberg".

The difference in density between pure water and ocean salt water is only about 2%, not 20%, so I don't know where you're going with your numbers.
victor809 Offline
#29 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Yes, but when melted the net results are not altered. The water level won't rise, so none of this makes a difference.
The biggest influence will be land based chunks of ice falling into the ocean and/or melting.
And even if catastrophic, I won't be suddenly blessed with ocean front at the casa de tailgater.


That would be true if the ice were saltwater. Saltwater-ice would float above the water at a level equal to the difference in density between water and ice. Freshwater ice will float higher in the ocean. So as it melts it's volume only shrinks by the difference in density between water and ice, but a greater percentage of it was floating, hence the extra volume.

I'm sure there are calculations out there, I don't know them off the top of my head.

You are right that the greatest impact will be from glaciers (land anchored ice)... but this is simply in response to the bad science behind the whole "ice cubes in a glass don't change the volume" argument
victor809 Offline
#30 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
You do realize that the reasons icebergs float so "high" is due to their geometry, don't you?
The vast majority of the berg is below water.
Hence the term "that's only the tip of the iceberg".

The difference in density between pure water and ocean salt water is only about 2%, not 20%, so I don't know where you're going with your numbers.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sealevel-rise.html

Here... we're talking sufficient volume to raise the ocean levels by a few cm. (that is actually worse than it sounds)
HockeyDad Offline
#31 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:10 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
So if all the floating ice melted, sea levels would raise by 4-6 centimeters? So we're talking 2 inches.

Crap. I bought way too far from the coast!
tailgater Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:20 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18841-melting-icebergs-boost-sealevel-rise.html

Here... we're talking sufficient volume to raise the ocean levels by a few cm. (that is actually worse than it sounds)


The net effect will be virtually zero.
The numbers expressed in this article totally ignore thermal expansion/contraction.

The temperature of the sea water in the polar regions is below 4 degrees C.
The only way for the icebergs to melt would be a corresponding increase in temperature.
The water would therefore become more dense (more compact) with the rise in temp until it surpasses the 4 degree threshold (which it won't).

Half truths are dangerous, and it's articles like this that give further proof that there is an agenda driving the information.
HockeyDad Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:21 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
Ima gonna go ahead and call off the panic.

We're back to stage yellow people.
DrafterX Offline
#34 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
HockeyDad wrote:
Ima gonna go ahead and call off the panic.

We're back to stage yellow people.




damn... went and got my checkbook for nothin... Not talking
victor809 Offline
#35 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:25 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
The net effect will be virtually zero.
The numbers expressed in this article totally ignore thermal expansion/contraction.

The temperature of the sea water in the polar regions is below 4 degrees C.
The only way for the icebergs to melt would be a corresponding increase in temperature.
The water would therefore become more dense (more compact) with the rise in temp until it surpasses the 4 degree threshold (which it won't).

Half truths are dangerous, and it's articles like this that give further proof that there is an agenda driving the information.


That's an interesting addition.

I'd be very curious to see how the calculations would work out on that. It would depend a LOT on the distribution of the additional heat.... ie, if we're looking at global increases in temp, then the areas of the ocean already warm would become much warmer. If we're looking at just a increased distribution of warmth, it may be that the only real increase in temperature would be near the poles.

An additional part of the calculation which you are neglecting would be that the melted ice would actually cool the oceans (this is something which I believe was suggested at one time to explain weather phenomena). So that would be working against the increased temperature.

Need some very sophisticated models to work that out.
teedubbya Offline
#36 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:28 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I don't know about all this science stuff.... I'm just waiting to get through this effing drought and get to winter so I can wait for a cold day and say "so much for global warming yuk yuk yuk"

I like to yuk it up
tailgater Offline
#37 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:38 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
That's an interesting addition.

I'd be very curious to see how the calculations would work out on that. It would depend a LOT on the distribution of the additional heat.... ie, if we're looking at global increases in temp, then the areas of the ocean already warm would become much warmer. If we're looking at just a increased distribution of warmth, it may be that the only real increase in temperature would be near the poles.

An additional part of the calculation which you are neglecting would be that the melted ice would actually cool the oceans (this is something which I believe was suggested at one time to explain weather phenomena). So that would be working against the increased temperature.

Need some very sophisticated models to work that out.


And yet we're told that the world is warming, the ice will melt, the oceans will rise, the world will end, and it's all man's fault.

All because we forgot to include a seemingly obvious variable...
victor809 Offline
#38 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:43 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
And yet we're told that the world is warming, the ice will melt, the oceans will rise, the world will end, and it's all man's fault.

All because we forgot to include a seemingly obvious variable...



It's a good variable. But I don't think it's conclusive which direction it would drive the results. I doubt we have the necessary models to figure that variable with accuracy.

Still leaves land-based glaciers tho... either way the ocean levels will rise with an increase in temperature. The question becomes how much.

The funny part is I expected this article to drive discussion a whole different way. I was expecting people to jump on it as defense of the whole "natural warming/cooling" cycle thing.
tailgater Offline
#39 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:45 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
It's a good variable. But I don't think it's conclusive which direction it would drive the results. I doubt we have the necessary models to figure that variable with accuracy.

Still leaves land-based glaciers tho... either way the ocean levels will rise with an increase in temperature. The question becomes how much.

The funny part is I expected this article to drive discussion a whole different way. I was expecting people to jump on it as defense of the whole "natural warming/cooling" cycle thing.


We could talk about gays instead, if you'd like.
HockeyDad Offline
#40 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:47 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
victor809 wrote:
The funny part is I expected this article to drive discussion a whole different way. I was expecting people to jump on it as defense of the whole "natural warming/cooling" cycle thing.




You have to understand.....global warming is old news and already played out. The real danger is solar flares.
tailgater Offline
#41 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:49 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
HockeyDad wrote:
You have to understand.....global warming is old news and already played out. The real danger is solar flares.


So now the sun is flaming??
Does Chik Fil-A know this??
teedubbya Offline
#42 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:51 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
If we allow the flamers to marry the world will end
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
So now the sun is flaming??
Does Chik Fil-A know this??


Best post ever.
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:57 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
teedubbya wrote:
If we allow the flamers to marry the world will end



Bassard flamers... Mad
tailgater Offline
#45 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 10:58 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Best post ever.


That's what she said.
victor809 Offline
#46 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 11:01 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
That's what she said.


Dammit... your wife told me you had left the house already!!!
tailgater Offline
#47 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 11:02 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Best post ever.


That's what TW said.
tailgater Offline
#48 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 11:09 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Dammit... your wife told me you had left the house already!!!


My wife would only cheat with a straight rugby player.

She's still looking.
The closest she found was in the dictionary. Next to "oxymoron".
Wikipedia provided a link for antonyms.
The Latin root for this is juxtaposition.
Google returned 0.00 results in 59 seconds.

I'm sure I missed some.
teedubbya Offline
#49 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 11:11 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
did someone say fencepost?
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted: Fri, Aug 3 2012, 11:16 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
My wife would only cheat with a straight rugby player.

She's still looking.
The closest she found was in the dictionary. Next to "oxymoron".
Wikipedia provided a link for antonyms.
The Latin root for this is juxtaposition.
Google returned 0.00 results in 59 seconds.

I'm sure I missed some.


How many times do I have to sleep with your wife before she believes I'm straight???? :)

She keeps saying "nope, I don't believe it... you're gonna have to do it again."
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top