There are plenty of climate scientists who disagree with a man-made climate change theory. I'm not saying they are rational, or not in the pay of whoever is happy with the status quo .... but they exist :wink:
It doesn't matter any more. We are now informed. Arquebus has told us that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. So it doesn't matter if it is increasing or it isn't. Thus there cannot be a greenhouse effect and thus no global warming or climate change. QED. That's the brilliant thing about this forum: you don't have to bother reading books, you can just get instant knowledge and education by looking at the Lounge.
I like the Lounge, it reminds me of Todd Rundgren. All the lies, all the truth All the things that I offer you
When ice is floating in water, the ice has a lower density than the liquid. A small part of the ice is above the water level, and most of it is below water level. Then the ice melts. What happens? The former ice, now liquid, is smaller in volume; but also it no longer sticks up above the water level. The reduction in the total volume of water + ice is exactly equal to the reduction in that part of the volume of ice sticking up above water level. The water level remains exactly where it started. Is that right?
Eureka... Surely floating ice displaces the same amount of water as it would if it were water, it only floats because it expands. If all the ice floating in the sea (North Pole etc) were to melt the sea level wouldn't change. But, if we are seeing global warming why is it so fookin' cold?... 'O' level Physics, 1978
Depends. If the water's average temperature has fluctuated due to effect of the melt, you may see a change in the overall density of the water. At 2c (sea water) or 4C (fresh water), water is at its densest, it effectively "expands" either side of that temperature.
Arquebus might want to try this experiment at home. Greenhouse effect (in a bottle) explained - YouTube i will try find out the name of the organisation that was paid by the oil companies to say climate change was not man made, but later changed its mind. But no serious, educated scientist believes it to be sun spots or other such nonsense.
Well , bugger me I expect you're right. For icebergs. I stand corrected. Even if there was a difference (and there is, because icebergs are freshwater and floating in seawater) it's marginal and would make no difference to ocean levels. Still, as you say, if you consider the icecaps, if they melt seawater levels will rise. You'd have to be a complete conspiracy theorist to really believe that everyone has pretending this to be the case when it's not. If you genuinely believed that even if the icecaps melted, seawater levels would not rise, and that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, then you aren't even worth arguing with. You might suddenly start claiming that the earth is flat.
There is of course the issue of ice that is sitting on rock instead of sea water ... when that melts, sea level goes up.
Tell that to the Aussies and Yanks being burnt out their homes. Global warming is a misnomer, its climate change, and I for one am flecked off with it. All we get is rain from all the arctic ice which has melted, then evaporated, only to fall on us, every bleeding day. The jet stream has moved south, so now its Baltic. This was projected in the climate change models.
As you well know (or should, if you are prepared to criticise another person's point of view) icebergs float and two thirds of an iceberg is below the water level..........That's the first point.....now do the math of what happens when that iceberg melts. The second point, is that one continent is all f*****g ice.......therefore, assume that at least two thirds of it (or more as we should know) is below the sea level...........so do the math again. The third point is that there are plenty of examples of dried up sea areas that could receive any potential excess water caused by land borne ice melting, which may cause flooding of some low lying areas, but I suggest that may temporary..... In the long run, though I would expect the sea level to either stay about the same or even drop very slowly.... However as neither of us won't be around to see it happen, the only good thing that will come out of it is that you won't be around waiting to pounce ready to impose your supercilious opinions upon other people that have their own view. And.....it was not the point you made precisely, you obviously are a bit light on comprehending the RTR Act.
Arquebus isn't going to fall for that one. It was on the BBC. And you'd have to switch the lamps around and run the experiment again to be sure.
The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube I await the climate change one for dummies!!!
Let's just say it's an added bonus. I'm 620m above sea level, or 2'000 feet if you prefer. If the sea comes up here, we'll all have died a long time ago. :wink:
There is also a bl**dy great dried up ocean called the Aral Sea which dried up because the population diverted the watercourses.....but the damn thing is still at sea level (there's still huge ships rusting away at the shoreline) so that can still fill up again.
Points of view are all fine and dandy in many areas. But unless you want to start debating the verisimilitudes of string theory, in physics, it's not really about points of view, but about facts and the way the world is. Please tell me what you are reading to get these ideas. Seriously - I'm interested. I'd like to research them. Probably find that it's an off shoot of Dianetics or something.
I wrote: "E.g. For a speed limit to apply, the law requires certain legal steps to have been taken by the authorities for the speed limit to come into force;" and you wrote: "If a speed limit has been imposed by the wrong Section of The Road Traffic Regulations Act and consquentally signing is incomplete or incorrect, then the speed limit is illegal and consequentally unenforceable." So my point was exactly the same as your point. We are in agreement!
