Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off

kyser_soze said:
Well according to them EVEN WHEN THE ICE MELTED it didn't spill over.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't but the glass couldn't have been full of liquid to start with.

Try it yourself if you don't believe it. :)
 
Yeah that's totally impossible, since all you've done is taken a glass full of water and added more water to it (albeit in a time-release kind of way). It has to spill over unless something seriously weird is going on.

A glass is a poor model I guess, since surface tension can hold water in even when it's over-filled.
 
kyser_soze said:
Well according to them EVEN WHEN THE ICE MELTED it didn't spill over.
Click to expand...

Of course it didn't. The dead weight of the ice is exactly the same as the dead weight of the melted ice, so the mass of water displaced is exactly the same. So unless the water is getting less dense or the gravitational constant is increasing ;) , the water level will not change.

Of course much of the ice in the real world is not floating in water, so its not a good analogy.

ETA: Actually it doesn't matter if the gravitational constant is increasing. Doh.
 
dash_two said:
I'll start reading all your links properly when you do.
Click to expand...


So that's a no then?

The British Institute of Geographers identified Reid Bryson as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. Now 86, he is often described as “the father of the science of modern climatology”.

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...

Full interview: http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
 
bigfish said:
You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...
And by breathing out water vapour. So global warming is man-made. ;)

How much has the population increased by in the last 150 years?
 
locutus12 said:
also An Inconvenient Truth uses science from 2004 to early 2006, Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off, doesn't put forward viable explanations as such, it just tries to pick holes in those that existed at the time, most of which stemmed from the 2001 IPCC report.
Click to expand...


I watched 'Inconvenient Truth' the other day. It told me about the danger of rising sea levels due to the ice melting.

It also told me that 40% of the arctic icecap has already melted, and serious inroads have been made into the Antarctic ice. It said that Greenland is melting.

If this much ice has melted already, why hasn't there been a major increase in the sea level already?
 
Jonti said:
Google is your friend

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4651876.stm
Click to expand...

I live beside the ocean, and have been here for about 28 years; I expect some of you do as well. There has been no noticeable change in the high water mark etc, in that time. As well, there are areas around here that are below sea level, and protected by dikes. Nothing has changed with respect to storms breaching the dikes, and there has been no change in the flooding of lowland coastal areas.

Your article talks of changes of about a foot and a half in the century, yet An Inconvenient Truth talks of the sea level rising by many feet.
 
My article? You really are a troll, just a far nicer troll than one usually meets; a real class act :)
 
I called it 'your article', because it was smack dab in the middle of your post:


13-05-2007, 02:42 PM
Jonti
time creature Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brixton
Posts: 3,310

Google is your friend

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4651876.stm


Jonti
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Jonti
Visit Jonti's homepage!
Find all posts by Jonti
Add Jonti to Your Buddy List

#100 13-05-2007, 03:08 PM
 
bigfish said:
So that's a no then?
Click to expand...

My god, you've been gone a while. But there's some business still be dealt with, bigfish. I'm not letting you wriggle your way out of your earlier difficulties!

Once again, who do you think is right on the issue of the 33 degree Greenhouse Effect? Is it Lindzen, who says its mostly down to water vapour and clouds? Or is it Novak, who says its mostly down to convection and conduction?

(In all honesty, I think you should abandon Novak once and for all. He's a crank. Unless of course you and he are the same person!)
 
Antonino Zichichi, Italy's most renowned scientist, reject AGW

Dr. Zichichi, who made the seminar's most powerful presentation, set its tone. It amounted to a damning indictment of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body responsible for most of the dire warnings that the press reports daily.

Dr. Zichichi demonstrated "that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view," reported Zenit, a news service that acts as an extension of the Vatican administration. "On the basis of actual scientific fact 'it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes,' and that it is plausible that 'man is not to blame.' "

Dr. Zichichi has concluded that solar activities are responsible for most of the global warming that earth has experienced -- he estimates that man-made causes of global warming account for less than 10% -- and his conclusions have gravitas: This man is the president of the World Federation of Scientists, past president of the European Physical Society, past president of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, and past president of the NATO Science Committee for Disarmament Technology.

He is also Italy's most renowned scientist, credited with the discovery of nuclear antimatter, the discovery of the "time-like" electromagnetic structure of the proton, the discovery of the effective energy in the forces which act between quarks and gluons, and the proof that, despite its complex structure, it is impossible to break the proton.
Click to expand...

Full report: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=121163d6-d6b9-45bb-830c-5d27f88f899a
 
Maybe the Particle Physicist's are getting worried that money diverted to study and possibly alleviate CC will mean they get less to spend on building new particle accelertators...
 
Knotted said:
Of course it didn't. The dead weight of the ice is exactly the same as the dead weight of the melted ice, so the mass of water displaced is exactly the same. So unless the water is getting less dense or the gravitational constant is increasing ;) , the water level will not change.

Of course much of the ice in the real world is not floating in water, so its not a good analogy.

ETA: Actually it doesn't matter if the gravitational constant is increasing. Doh.
Click to expand...

Small point...The VOLUME of ice is greater than its own weight of water and will displace more water. When it melts it'll displace even less.

There is an argument that a lot of antarctic polar ice is floating in water anyway already displacing 90% of its water volume so melting ice caps won't make much difference as the extra 10% will lose out to the shrinking volume. But as you say what happens to all that water from ice that is not in water like the Arctic but will be released when the poles melt, where will it go?
 
Structaural said:
Small point...The VOLUME of ice is greater than its own weight of water and will displace more water. When it melts it'll displace even less.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Remember that a small portion of ice will be above the surface and therefore not displacing any water. The increase in volume will be the same as this portion of ice above the water. But I don't think that's a good way to look at it. The weight of the ice and the weight of the melted ice will be the same even if the densities have changed - conservation of mass.

Structaural said:
There is an argument that a lot of antarctic polar ice is floating in water anyway already displacing 90% of its water volume so melting ice caps won't make much difference as the extra 10% will lose out to the shrinking volume. But as you say what happens to all that water from ice that is not in water like the Arctic but will be released when the poles melt, where will it go?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of what's going on with the melting ice in the arctic ocean. If its not being propped up by islands it shouldn't make any difference to sea levels if it melts. Greenland and the Antartic are different cases, though.
 
Knotted said:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Remember that a small portion of ice will be above the surface and therefore not displacing any water. The increase in volume will be the same as this portion of ice above the water. But I don't think that's a good way to look at it. The weight of the ice and the weight of the melted ice will be the same even if the densities have changed - conservation of mass.
Click to expand...

They do cancel each other out? I wasn't sure.
 
Structaural said:
They do cancel each other out? I wasn't sure.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they do. Again its best to look at the weights. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The downwards force from the ice/melted ice is going to be the same in both cases. The conteracting downwards force of displaced water needs to be equal to this - so the weight of displaced water should be the same in both cases.
 
Knotted said:
I'm pretty sure they do. Again its best to look at the weights. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The downwards force from the ice/melted ice is going to be the same in both cases. The conteracting downwards force of displaced water needs to be equal to this - so the weight of displaced water should be the same in both cases.
Click to expand...

Ah I gotcha.
 
Buds and Spawn said:
The guy is a physicist - not a climatologist. He's talking pants.
Click to expand...

But George Monbiot's a zoologist who writes unremitting climate alarmist rubbish - even though he's not a climatologist.
 
Monbiot is a bit younger though. Zichichi will be 78 this year. So many of those who disregard the enormous amount of evidence for anthropogenic global warming seem to be so very old. Could this be Planck's Principle at work?

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Click to expand...
 
Structaural said:
Small point...The VOLUME of ice is greater than its own weight of water and will displace more water. When it melts it'll displace even less.
Click to expand...
er - the volume of ice is greater than that of water, but that's the bit that sticks out the top of the water as it floats, and if it's sticking out the top it's not displacing any water... therefore it'll displace the same amount when melted as when frozen unless I'm missing something.

Other than some small increase in volume due to thermal expansion as the dark water that was previously under the ice but is now absorbing heat from the sun expands slightly as it warms, the arctic melting should have no real impact on overall sea levels (though if the arctic melted then I'd have thought this would raise the temperature in the whole surrounding areas and lead to the greenland ice sheet melting, along with loads of other land based ice in the surrounding areas which would raise sea levels).
 
bigfish said:
But George Monbiot's a zoologist who writes unremitting climate alarmist rubbish - even though he's not a climatologist.
Click to expand...
Monbiot is a journalist (albeit with an academic background) - and as such he COMMENTS on the work of climate scientists. If you want to debunk climate science then deal with what climate scientists are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Rubin Observatory discovers thousands of new asteroids in its first week of operation
Replies
1
Views
213
2hats
2hats
danny la rouge
Jane Goodall has died, aged 91
Replies
10
Views
257
marty21
marty21
JimW
The crazy world of octopus copulation
Replies
7
Views
258
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
teqniq
Unexplained UAP phenomena discovered in analysis of Palomar sky survey
Replies
22
Views
286
xenon
X
Sasaferrato
Trees stressed by heat and lack of water.
Replies
9
Views
399
Fflur
F
Back
Top Bottom