Climate Change Report

[Wafflestomper]

Religion is not influencing laws, it influences people who vote for people who make the laws. Science influences agencies (in the manner benefiting the agency) who influence legislators (that are duly elected) that may or may not make laws that affect people in a manner they didn't vote for. I felt sure that I wouldn't have to draw you a picture.

It's funny you say that because many will argue that country itself was founded on Christian principles.

I don't see why you wouldn't also believe that people who believe in science elect like-minded politicians, who then vote to fund such inquiries either. I feel like you're purposely skewing this situation to try to save your criticism of one of my other comments.

 

[82_VOL_83]

It's funny you say that because many will argue that country itself was founded on Christian principles.

I don't see why you wouldn't also believe that people who believe in science elect like-minded politicians, who then vote to fund such inquiries either. I feel like you're purposely skewing this situation to try to save your criticism of one of my other comments.

As far as I know, churches are not allowed to directly go to legislators and lobby. Part of the whole tax deductible thing. Science agencies and foundations can and will directly influence legislators in a manner that doesn't jive with what the people that elected them agree with. You are trying really hard to make a point and, at least with me, you aren't going to win it. Religious people vote, that is what you have an issue with. Since you don't like religion, then get off your ass and politic against religious people and not against religion.

 

[82_VOL_83]

And by the way, go buy your liquor on Saturday. Not being able to buy liquor on Sunday is a weak ass argument when you try to equate it to spending more federal $$ to stave off something that the rest of the world laughs at.

I have 5 bottles of 1816 in my cabinet, several bottles of Scotch, 5 bottles of Tito's. If you need something to drink on Sunday freaking come down to my 10 ton, water displacing, sea level raising, GO BIG ORANGE BOAT and we will get **** faced!

 

[MontyPython]

One does not follow from the other.

Yeah, yeah it does.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Probably the best rebuttal to the science/religion argument I have ever heard......now, in a convert or die cult like islam as practiced in the middle east, is that science or religion?

Bump for answer to this one.....I know, wrong thread but I forget if I don't ax immediately.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yeah, yeah it does.

No, not really but arguing science with a Business major is sometimes fruitless. It doesn't follow since you included all ice. Only non-floating ice would have that effect.

Edit: the effect you are talking about also depends on temperature and salinity.

 

[0nelilreb]

As for myself ... I can’t wait to go all Kevin Costner and water world . Having a set of gills when I want to use them would be cool .

 

[Rifleman]

Oh that’s completely false. You can continue to believe this in your head, but to say that there are enough boats in this world to displace the entirety of the oceans sea level to a meaningful degree is absolutely untrue.

I came across the answer to this once on a mathematics site where they will attempt to equation through anything readers send in.

They calculated the global displacement of all ships--merchant, private, and military--as 1/6th the diameter of a thread of spider silk. So around 1 micrometer.

When you think about how much it would take to have a measurable displacement on a sphere with a 24,000 mile circumference that is mostly water. I still find that impressive.

Now consider how much new water and heat expansion it takes to add the annual 1/8th of an inch of seal level rise. That's about 3,200 micrometers.

Or, to put it in the original analogy, it is as is each ship currently in the ocean displacing water had the equivalent of its displacement added 3200 times every single year. And that number is increasing slightly each year.

 

[Persian Vol]

Those red boats are tankers and cargo ships. You ever stood next to one? If loaded to full weight they're even displacing more water.

I know what a ship looks like. I know that ships are big. But they are small in comparison to the overall size of the ocean. I think that is the part you are avoiding to acknowledge.

 

[Persian Vol]

What is your definition of "floats on water"? A boat can be said to float on water, but as I said, my boat displaces 10 tons. Water weighs 62.3 pounds per cubic foot. That means that my boat displaces 321 ft^3 of water. As an example, if my boat is floating in a foot ball field size pond (300 ft X 160 ft) it will raise the water level in that area by 0.08 in. Not much right, but 100 of those boats raise that level 8 inches. So the idea of the number of boats floating on the surface of the ocean is not so far fetched when you consider we are talking in millimeters of ocean level.

Ships

 

[Persian Vol]

Religion is not influencing laws, it influences people who vote for people who make the laws. Science influences agencies (in the manner benefiting the agency) who influence legislators (that are duly elected) that may or may not make laws that affect people in a manner they didn't vote for. I felt sure that I wouldn't have to draw you a picture.

So... it influences laws?

 

[hog88]

So... it influences laws?

Of course religion influences law, so does panic, fear, jealousy, hunger, emotion and so on.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Of course religion influences law, so does panic, fear, jealousy, hunger, emotion and so on.

Context has been lost by now.........

 

[82_VOL_83]

Ships

NICE! However, I would have to do the math myself. The claim made recently about a FL size chunk of Antarctica breaking off and raising sealevel 2-3 feet was about as much BS too.


Just for giggles, I think it's about 960 billion tons to raise the ocean .5 feet.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It seems counterintuitive, but this isn't so. Freshwater is less dense than saltwater, and thus has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

Conservation of mass dictates that as ice melts the water level remains the same. Go do a science experiment in your kitchen tonight and see for yourself. Also since it’s estimated that 97.5% of the earth’s water is salt water I’m not too worried about rising sea levels due to ice melting.

The more you know.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It seems counterintuitive, but this isn't so. Freshwater is less dense than saltwater, and thus has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

Also bonus point water is one if not the only liquids with a fairly unique physical property that when it changes phase from liquid to solid it expands. Most other chemicals do the opposite. Thus ice already is lower density than the surrounding water.

The more you know again.

 

[GVF]

I'm pleased to report that climate change has had no adverse effect on rainfall in middle TN this year. Or the last five years for that matter.

 

[Persian Vol]

Conservation of mass dictates that as ice melts the water level remains the same. Go do a science experiment in your kitchen tonight and see for yourself. Also since it’s estimated that 97.5% of the earth’s water is salt water I’m not too worried about rising sea levels due to ice melting.

The more you know.

This would be relevant if all the ice in our world that was threatened to melt into the ocean came solely from iceburgs that are entirely submerged into the ocean. But that isn’t the case. This argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

[NorthDallas40]

This would be relevant if all the ice in our world that was threatened to melt into the ocean came solely from iceburgs that are entirely submerged into the ocean. But that isn’t the case. This argument is fundamentally flawed.

So ice at 0C has a density of 0.916 g/cc. Water at 0C has a density of 0.9998 g/cc. Sea water already liquid and in the oceans occupies 97.5% of the water on earth. So when all of the land born freshwater icebergs collectively rise up and walk to the ocean to die they occupy 2.5% of the water on earth and have about 8% to grow before it’s an issue. So about that flawed argument you were saying...?

 

[Persian Vol]

So ice at 0C has a density of 0.916 g/cc. Water at 0C has a density of 0.9998 g/cc. Sea water already liquid and in the oceans occupies 97.5% of the water on earth. So when all of the land born freshwater icebergs walk to the ocean to die they occupy 2.5% of the water on earth and have about 8% to grow before it’s an issue. So about that flawed argument you were saying...?

What?

 

[NorthDallas40]

What?

That is called pointing at and making fun of your silly argument.

 

[Persian Vol]

What was my argument exactly?

 

[Wafflestomper]

As far as I know, churches are not allowed to directly go to legislators and lobby. Part of the whole tax deductible thing.

Pew says there are more than 200 religious lobbies, employing more than 1,000 people in the D.C. area.

Science agencies and foundations can and will directly influence legislators in a manner that doesn't jive with what the people that elected them agree with.

So just like pretty much every other lobby or special interest group in Washington then?

You are trying really hard to make a point and, at least with me, you aren't going to win it. Religious people vote, that is what you have an issue with. Since you don't like religion, then get off your ass and politic against religious people and not against religion.

I never said any of that. You just got butthurt about an analogy because you're too sensitive about religion and/or ACC. The funny thing is that my analogy implied that failed predictions of Jesus' return wasn't grounds for dismissing Christianity. I'm still not sure what about that analogy was stupid; you more or less changed the nature of your objection when pressed on it.

And by the way, go buy your liquor on Saturday. Not being able to buy liquor on Sunday is a weak ass argument when you try to equate it to spending more federal $$ to stave off something that the rest of the world laughs at.

"You don't need a 30-round magazine!"

By the way, I've not said that the government should pass some law about climate change, so your objections to me are pretty much irrelevant.

 

[NorthDallas40]

What was my argument exactly?

A chicken little statement that polar icecaps melting is going to cause the earths sea level to rise.

97.5% of the water on earth is salt water.

Of the remaining 2.5% of fresh water 1.7% of that is polar ice and snow.

Thus if every single snowflake and ice cube went to the ocean to die it’s 1.7 * 0.916 / 0.998 = 1.56% increase in sea level. That takes every single molecule of ice. Care to explain how that would happen?

Here is another example of the bad science you are propagating. We’re going to be fine.

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

This idiot actually has a PhD and totally ignored the volumetric expansion of the phase change of water to ice. not to mention the total available percentage of fresh water in polar ice and snow. Double

Edit: and for triple let’s point out the rigged beaker experiment. Now let’s use an ice cube which is 1.7% of the volume of the salt water in the beaker and let’s also use a beaker with the correct H x W aspect ratio to emulate the earth’s oceans as 70% of the earth’s surface is covered in oceans.

It’s this kind of idiot science that needlessly riles people up.

 

[Persian Vol]

Your formula is completely flawed. Increase in elevation is dependent on the volume of the matter being submerged and the surface area of the liquid. Your whimsically simple equation does not account for surface area of the ocean whatsoever, and only the volume, which hardly gives you enough information to claim an increase in sea level.

For you to say I am propagating bad science irony at its core.