Bradley T, you're not very intelligent, are you?
Instead of performing your brainless experiment, why don't you demonstrate how the ice on top of the rocks melt if you were to put the glass in the freezer, simulating the sub-zero surface temperature over land? How the brine, which is below zero itself, due to its colligative properties, conducts enough heat to warm the land with enough heat to cause substantial melting? Let me know how that works out for you, genius. In the real world, this is how MOST of the polar ice is, on top of land mass...except the warmer waters and increased evaporation rates leads to higher levels of precipitation and INCREASING levels of glacial ice, just as is happening on the majority of the Antarctic landmass.
Explain how a divided aquarium filled half with salt water dyed to a distinct color and the other half with fresh water approximates the real world. But let's just skip the bit of hyperbole and acknowledge that "to reduce the salinity levels in the ocean too much would stop the warm equatorial currents from flowing into the Northern Hemisphere." True, the thermohaline currents both regulate and are regulated by free floating ice. Explain what happens to the polar atmosphere when it no longer has the heat from the "warm equatorial currents" and the higher concentrations of water vapor as a result of the aforementioned evaporation rate increase? I'll help: it starts with a "g" and ends in "laciation".
Explain how you would heat the aquarium full of water to approximate real world heat transfer - from the surface down. Explain how you heat from the surface without significantly increasing evaporation rates. In the real world this evaporation would result in more rainfall and flooding...as long as the dew point is NOT increasing. But that would suggest a DECREASE in global temperatures, otherwise the increased global average temperatures would translate into an increase in the absolute humidity (ie, increased capacity in the atmosphere to hold this "excess" water vapor).
Stick to your aquariums and leave the real world for those of us who actually live in it.
2007-07-25 19:59:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by 3DM 5
·
3⤊
6⤋
dpj5 you're not very intelligent are you?
Instead of your brainless experiment, fill your glass full of rocks and water until the water reaches the brim with some rocks protruding. Then balance some ice cubes on the rocks and see if your glass flows over the edges as the ice melts... Let me know how that works out for you genius. In the real world, this is how MOST of the polar ice is, on top of land mass. Your answer was the stupidest thing that I have seen since Kevin Costner's Waterworld.
Some other experiments that you might want to pursue which are important to this issue:
Take a divided aquarium and fill half with salt water dyed to a distinct colour and the other half with fresh water. When you pull the divider up a couple of centimeters you will notice that the coloured salt water gushes into the fresh water side and the fresh water will increase in its height compared to the salt water despite now being one body of water. Hmmm, what does this mean? Well it means that salt water is more dense then fresh water and to reduce the salinity of the ocean through the melting of any ice, land held or ice berg mass, would also affect the oceans level to increase. This same principal is also what drives the ocean currents and to reduce the salinity levels in the ocean too much would stop the warm equatorial currents from flowing into the Northern Hemisphere.
Another experiment that you might want to attempt would be to take a large aquarium full to the brim with salt water at a few degrees Celsius. Increase its temperature by a degree or two and see what happens. PS, make sure that the aquarium is deep, not shallow, in order to maximize the effect since this change of volume will be less then that of the melting of ice. plus, don't use warm water because the evaporation potential might offset the increase in volume. In the real world this evaporation would result in more rainfall and flooding... obviosly since global climate change is irrelevant as demonstrated by your ice cube experiment, this evaporation and precipitation is not important either... I had better turn the news off because they are showing me that irrelevant flooding in Texas and Britain again.
One last point dpj5, just leave the "concepts" of global climate change to the scientists. If you are any indication of the average layman, then to listen to the likes of you would be quite fatal to our species.
________________________________
3DM, thank you for demonstrating how ignorant you are of the scientific method, including how the different states of water act in the real world. Maybe you should go back to playschool and start your education from scratch?
2007-07-25 16:49:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
OK cooper, I see from one of your other questions that you are only 14 years old. You are, therefore, young and, understandably, a little bit naïve. As you get older, you’ll learn that the world is not the “black & white” place that the young believe it to be. I’m 39, and I’ve leaned that it’s wise to have a healthy amount of scepticism about what I’m told. I’ve had the wool pulled over my eyes too many times in the past.
This is why I’m a “catastrophic global warming” sceptic; there’s just too much about it that makes me go “hmmm?”.
The “facts” you provide for people that believe global warming is real are classic examples…
Polar bears are not dying. The Global Warming Alarmists know that people (especially children) love polar bears. So, they tell everyone who’ll listen that polar bears are dying due to global warming, even though they know it’s not true, because they hope that the people will not bother to check up on them (as you evidently haven’t). Here is a link (http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html ) to what a scientists who has spent a lifetime studying polar bears has to say. Here’s a quote…
“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present… it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.”
Ice caps melting. Well, the Arctic is melting, but it is no warmer there that it was back in the 1930s. And remember, the ice in the Arctic is already floating on the ocean, so, if it melts it will have no effect on sea levels at all.
The Antarctic meanwhile is *not* melting. That’s a bit of a shocker, isn’t it? *Everybody* is saying it’s melting, so it must be, mustn’t it? Well, it’s not true, even the IPCC agree that it’s not melting. Have a look for yourself at the bottom of page 9 (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf ) They say…
“Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.”
Third, you say “worse weather soon to come [katrina]”, but again, you are being mislead. Katrina had absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It wasn’t a particularly big storm. It certainly wasn’t ‘the biggest storm ever’, or even the biggest storm of 2005 (it was the third biggest). When it hit New Orleans, it wasn’t even a category 5 storm – it was category 4 and dropped to category 3 almost immediately after making landfall. The only reason Katrina was a disaster was because it hit New Orleans, which is built 6m below sea level, with flood defences that were only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane. It was a disaster waiting to happen. By the way, New Orleans was devastated by hurricanes 3 times in the 1700s long before global warming started.
Also, research shows that hurricanes are *not* going to get worse as a result of global warming, but that didn’t stop Dr. Kevin Trenberth, one of the lead authors of the IPCC, holding a press conference to say that they will. Christopher Landsea, a top researcher in the area of hurricane activity, resigned from the IPCC because of this. Here’s what he had to say (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html )
“I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small.”
So, once again, they were lying in the hope of fooling anyone who was gullible enough to listen.
I hope reading the above has opened your eyes to the way in which you are being manipulated into jumping onto the global warming bandwagon. So, cooper, next time you hear something about global warming, just stop and ask yourself “I wonder if that’s true or not?” Perhaps you should then come on here and ask us lot. You may still choose to believe it, but at least you’ll have had the opportunity to hear both sides of the story.
Have a read of my sources and you might just realise how much you’re being conned.
As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.
2007-07-26 08:30:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by amancalledchuda 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
A lot of people are scared of the truth but pretty much all the politican are now saying global warming IS happening. They are looking at scientific evidence showing us that this is indeed happening. The argument now is more so about whether or not it's ECONOMICAL for us to 'go green'. For all the people who are giving you a hard time they just are ignoring the facts or not wanting to face it. They are scared.
2007-07-25 16:02:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by cibolover 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most people are in denial. They are in denial of the truth. Most people who have got themselves emotionally involved in wanting to believe in Global Warming, that is.
They don't want to hear the news that is published on this web site:
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/
because it will threaten their beliefs in a benevolent world of politicians, rich movie stars with investments, and business people who want to really save the environment. That safe benevolent world does not exist. Some conniving people are manipulating the emotions of a lot of people out there to cause a carbon trade system. The ramifications of this system are exponentially worse than any possible risk from Global warming.
This is why the focus is not on the environment, it's not on pollution, it's on natural CO2. Why all the focus on Carbon? Carbon is the basis for all Life.
EDIT: You may notice I get many thumbs down for bringing up the dangers of the carbon trade. I personally have the good sense not to thumbs down anybody for their answers myself. All I ask is that you read some of the articles I just mentioned about how the carbon trade, carbon tax, carbon offsets, and the like work and who really benefits and who's going to hurt.
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/
No use censoring yourself from information just because of you got some preconceived ideas. The people who put together this website are LIBERAL ACTIVISTS so perhaps they might be on to something?
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/
You can actually do a due diligence on this group. There ain't no ulterior motive, I assure you.
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/
2007-07-25 16:20:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Harry H 2
·
1⤊
4⤋
Man made polution is bad weather or not it warms things up. Fixing polution is the way to fix CO2 issues. Why does no one want to do that?
2007-07-25 16:22:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by jim m 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Here is an article that directly relates to your question:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12771
There are only two sides to anything. Otherwise, people start to think. The power structure wants peoples minds to only function in binary.
2007-07-25 17:11:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Desiree M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The real truth is probably deep inside every man. The problem is everyone want to have their own truth for some reason.
2007-07-25 16:53:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by GABY 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is actually no scientific controversy anymore, about the main issues of global warming.
2007-07-25 17:24:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by cosmo 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Water levels rise? From what, melting icebergs? Try this experiment. Put 4-5 ice cubes in a glass. Fill the glass with water. Let me know if it spills. The answer is no. Same will happen (or not) with melting icebergs.
2007-07-25 16:33:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Splitters 7
·
0⤊
5⤋