I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.
An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add
enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they
are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the
cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?
In my case, it didn't.
Here is an alternate, and probably more appropriate, test that you could
Start with a rectangular fish tank. Place dirt and rocks in it such that
the dirt and rocks are high up on one end and have the dirt and rocks slope
down toward the other end to where they are at zero height on the other end.
Then, fill it half way with water and place ice in the water and also on the
dirt/rock "hillside" that is above the water line. That would more
accurately replicate the way that glaciers are on earth -- meaning that the
glaciers are both on top of the ground/dirt/rocks and also partially in the
ocean where the ocean meets the ground/dirt/rocks.
Wait until the ice in the fish tank melts. Let us know if the water level
rises in the fish tank as the ice melts.
Wanna take a guess as to what will happen to the water level?
Yes, and depending on who the co-pilot is, and what his mental state at the
time is, you might get a really close-up view of the icebergs and glaciers;
at least for a few seconds before the crash.
What? Too soon?
You're focusing on the North Pole where everything is floating in the
ocean. Think about the South Pole where much of the snow and ice is on land
and will run into the oceans as it melts.And of course there's lots of snow
and ice on North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.
As you can see I don't think much of your ice cube experiment.
When the ice began to float, the contents reached
equilibrium. The small amount of ice above water
line would suggest that the level would rise as it
melted. Not so. The ice crystal structure is
than the liquid therefore it will float because
weight per volume is less. As the ice melts it
back to the liquid structure which is smaller.
the water line you marked won't change.
I'm no geologist but AFIK, the glaciers are not floating in the ocean. I
think that's what icebergs are. Glaciers are sitting on land, so that
when they melt their water is added to the ocean. ref:
Sounds to me like the math/physics are pretty straightforward assuming
that the volume of the oceans and the volume of the glaciers are known
but the wild card seems to be how fast the glaciers are melting. viz:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to
limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going
to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company
has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just
pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products
you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going
to pass the cost on to the consumer.
And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money
in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of
what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar.
Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. 40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many?
food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues.
and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop
and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
Your central argument appeared to be that companies don't want
to do anything about global warming because of profits. I'm just
pointing out that while there are indeed companies on one side of
the battle, there is plenty of profit motive and big business
for those on the other side too.
As to global warming costing everyone, seems rather unlikely.
Just as there are people that will be negatively affected by it,
there are others that will likely be positively affected.
Ignoring it will only have negative consequences if:
1 - The prevailing scientific view is correct and global
warming continues for many decades
2 - It's actually caused by manmade CO2.
3 - That we can slow it down substantially or reverse it by steps
that enough world govts can all agree on. With folks like China, the
largest emitter, saying screw you, how likely do you think
that is going to be?
And if anyone of the above is not true, then we will have
poured God knows how many trillions down a rat hole.
Sea levels have risen about 6" in the last 100 years.
Currently, they are rising about twice that rate. Seems like the
prospect of Americans fleeing the coast, if it happens, is still
a long way off. If it happens, IDK who will pay for it, but
I won't be alive by then to worry about it. Venice has been battling
flooding for centuries and somehow they've managed to maintain a
city built on water.
Maybe they will. But food prices for the world have already soared
because of the massive diversion of crops to alcohol in pursuit of clean
energy. Just look at a box of cornflakes or a loaf of bread.
You're mixing apples and oranges. CO2 is a normal component of the
earth's atmosphere and isn't a carcinogen.
There weren't hurricanes and tornadoes until now? And even
if you're suggesting that they are somehow worse now, there have
been periods in past where hurricane activity was increased. They
sometimes increase for a decade or two, then decline again. I don't
even see most meteorologists trying to claim that global warming
is responsible for hurricanes and tornadoes.
I'm not opposed to reasonable, cost effective steps that can
reduce CO2 emissions. Higher efficiency furnaces, more insulation
in new homes, LED lighting, for example are all good things. But
going too far, too quickly, driving up costs everywhere, putting the
US at a disadvantage to places like China and India, I don't think
that's a good idea. And then you have to contend with the fact that
the forces that most want to limit CO2, are also dead set against
much of what could be used. For example, the hippies won't allow a
nuke to be built. In my world, you can't have it both ways. If global
warming is caused by CO2 and 40% of Americans are going to have to
flee the coast, then shouldn't we be building nukes? Instead, we're
closing them down.
These gullible maroons and useful idiots for the power brokers actually
think they are going to control the earth's climate. (I have a bridge
in Brooklyn to sell them.) This is probably rooted in the old Soviet
idea that the State would become so powerful that it would control the
very weather. That political ideology has now been enhanced in scope
in order for the State to take on the Earth's climate as a whole.
It is instructive to look at the predictions made by Warmists and other
environmentalists over the last 15 or 20 years. (Or the last 40+ years
for that matter.) How many of their dire predictions have actually come
To really understand the phenomenon of human-caused "global warming,"
"climate change," or whatever they choose to call it next week you have
to follow the power and the money, same as always. It's really about
separating you from your money, your property, and whatever is left of
"Global warming is a bunch of hooey."
-- Prof. Reid Bryson, father of scientific climatology
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to
places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but
not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast
as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and
most of Florida.
It is still a long ways off and lots of other things are far more
likely to occur between now and then. I suppose you could start
investing in beach front property in Orlando but your great
grandchildren will still not be dipping their toes in the ocean there.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.