Posted on 03/29/2005 12:53:45 PM PST by rface
Maybe the ocean isn't really rising, maybe the land is sinking under all the weight of too many people! Heck, Michael Moore could be a big part of the problem!
Years ago, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute had a page on continental subsidence. Last time I looked, a couple of years ago, it had gone down the rabbit hole.
As if the Red Sox winning the World Series didn't convince them the world was coming to an end.
But this would be good for the electoral college.
We're winning, I tell ya, we're winning!
Not everyone who wanted to attend the Global Warming presentation could attend.
They were snowed in.
To teach displacement he had us put 4 ice cubes in a glass and fill it to the brim with water. Then it was to set until the end of the day (ice had melted) and we were to record our observations. We hurried back into the lab at the end of the day to find not a drop of water spilled and the water in the glass still at the brim. We accused this fine man of altering the experiment. Understanding as he was, he told us that we would do the same experiment the next day with low heat. Sure enough we did it. We placed 4 ice cubes and filled it to the brim with water. We sat the glass over a very low Bunsen burner and went on with the rest of our class. At the end of the class the same thing had happened. With a notable exception. The water level was not exactly at the brim. "Can anyone explain that" asked Mr. Sharon. I popped up and said, "evaporation due to heat", and of course I was correct.
Point: The displacement of the ice=the displacement of the water of the ice. Hence, the volume in the glass is the same pre and post ice melt. That little experiment taught me more about physics than any of the larger things I learned in College.
Here's the thing, we know this phenomenon is true. Volume of a liquid in a frozen state equal the volume of liquid in a liquid state. How, then does the "Global warming" model work? It doesn't, if you consider the physics of it. So, how can the volume of the oceans absorb the "great mass" of the polar ice caps. Question: what is the ratio of the volume of the ice caps to the volume of all the oceans? Well, first we must create a model where the volume of water on the planet is constant. Is that the case? If it is then we must consider vapor and condensation and every little thing to come down the pike, as most models don't.
I'm tired now, and I don't think that running up the same blind alley as the environmentalist whack jobs is worth my time. Sufficed to say.....they are full of, used food.
No. And if the ice melts, water level remains the same, doesn't it? Unless the ice is on land, if that's what they're trying to say.
I don't think this is true vis-a-vis water and ice. Ice actually has a larger volume than the water it is made of by about 10%... because it takes on a crystalline structure that water does not have. It DOES mass the same, but ice displaces the equal mass... and some of its volume will be above the level of the water. That's why ice floats. When the ice melts, that volume that is above the water level just disappears as it returns to its former volume.
Ice that is not FLOATING on water can add to the total volume of the water. Thus Arctic Ice is pretty much accounted for because it is floating... but antarctic ice on Antarctica (the continent) is not accounted for in the ocean levels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.