Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#8,927
#8,927
McDad said:


Most compelling projection to date to speed up our global warming. Now isn't the time to slow down. Now is the time to pour on more steam...er...thick, sooty, carbonated smoke.
Click to expand...

According to that I might be oceanfront. It's ok
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#8,928
#8,928
McDad said:


Most compelling projection to date to speed up our global warming. Now isn't the time to slow down. Now is the time to pour on more steam...er...thick, sooty, carbonated smoke.
Click to expand...


I thought when an ice cube melts in a glass of water the level stays the same. So this discounts any water born glaciers. YOu cannot convince me there is enough land born glaciers in the world to make any ant hill differnce in ocean levels.

Antactica ice is assumed to be 3-6' average thickness and 5.2 Mil miles^2 or 5,228 miles^2 assuming densities were the same for water and ice. The world's oceans are 140 million miles^2.
The Earth surface is 197 mil miles^2 according to Google, so 192 mil minus the 5 mil glacier.

The Eath radius is 3,959 mile so, Pi x R^2 is only 49 million square miles...And now I am confused. I wanted to figure the circumference differences. Epic Fail.
 
#8,929
#8,929
Orangeburst said:
I thought when an ice cube melts in a glass of water the level stays the same. So this discounts any water born glaciers. YOu cannot convince me there is enough land born glaciers in the world to make any ant hill differnce in ocean levels.

Antactica ice is assumed to be 3-6' average thickness and 5.2 Mil miles^2 or 5,228 miles^2 assuming densities were the same for water and ice. The world's oceans are 140 million miles^2.
The Earth surface is 197 mil miles^2 according to Google, so 192 mil minus the 5 mil glacier.

The Eath radius is 3,959 mile so, Pi x R^2 is only 49 million square miles...And now I am confused. I wanted to figure the circumference differences. Epic Fail.
Click to expand...
You got caught up in details and missed the big picture. We can put Florida under the sea. Even if the chance is remote, we must try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, GroverCleveland, StarRaider and 1 other person
#8,930
#8,930
Orangeburst said:
I thought when an ice cube melts in a glass of water the level stays the same. So this discounts any water born glaciers. YOu cannot convince me there is enough land born glaciers in the world to make any ant hill differnce in ocean levels.

Antactica ice is assumed to be 3-6' average thickness and 5.2 Mil miles^2 or 5,228 miles^2 assuming densities were the same for water and ice. The world's oceans are 140 million miles^2.
The Earth surface is 197 mil miles^2 according to Google, so 192 mil minus the 5 mil glacier.

The Eath radius is 3,959 mile so, Pi x R^2 is only 49 million square miles...And now I am confused. I wanted to figure the circumference differences. Epic Fail.
Click to expand...
Come on, his example only showed what would happen with a 230 foot rise in the ocean. Scientists are only predicting a 220 foot rise in the next 10 years unless we each spend a Billion dollars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Orangeburst
#8,932
#8,932
Orangeburst said:
I thought when an ice cube melts in a glass of water the level stays the same. So this discounts any water born glaciers. YOu cannot convince me there is enough land born glaciers in the world to make any ant hill differnce in ocean levels.

Antactica ice is assumed to be 3-6' average thickness and 5.2 Mil miles^2 or 5,228 miles^2 assuming densities were the same for water and ice. The world's oceans are 140 million miles^2.
The Earth surface is 197 mil miles^2 according to Google, so 192 mil minus the 5 mil glacier.

The Eath radius is 3,959 mile so, Pi x R^2 is only 49 million square miles...And now I am confused. I wanted to figure the circumference differences. Epic Fail.
Click to expand...

giphy (7).gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423, StarRaider, volfanhill and 2 others
#8,938
#8,938
I hate to be that guy but ice is less dense than liquid water (water expands when it freezes and breaks stuff like pipes).... so melting ice would be denser and take up less volume in liquid form (at least I think I heard that from Cliff Clavin)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#8,939
#8,939
This clip below was from an article in the Atlanta press in June of 2020. I expect to have a fairly nice piece of business out of it, supplying some catalyst and adsorbent for purification of the "bioethylene" which is an intermediate between the ethanol and the jet fuel.

Illinois-based LanzaTech announced this week it has launched a new company, LanzaJet, with $15 million from Suncor Energy of Canada and $10 million from Japanese trading and investment company Mitsui & Co. Ltd. The funding will be used to construct a demonstration biorefinery plant in Soperton, Ga. A biorefinery is where plant or animal materials are used to create energy and chemicals. The Georgia biorefinery would produce 10 million gallons per year of “sustainable aviation fuel” and renewable diesel starting from sustainable ethanol sources, according to a press release. Production is expected to start in early 2022.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and hog88
#8,940
#8,940
StarRaider said:
I hate to be that guy but ice is less dense than liquid water (water expands when it freezes and breaks stuff like pipes).... so melting ice would be denser and take up less volume in liquid form (at least I think I heard that from Cliff Clavin)
Click to expand...

Ice that's over land melting is the issue I think. Some percentage of the ice is above the water and the rest is displacing enough water to support its mass. If you remove the ice from the water and the hole the ice occupied in the water stayed there, it would require that piece of ice's mass in water to fill the hole again. That's why once the ice melts the level doesn't change.
 
#8,947
#8,947
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Orangeslice13
#8,948
#8,948
Wafflestomper said:
Ice that's over land melting is the issue I think. Some percentage of the ice is above the water and the rest is displacing enough water to support its mass. If you remove the ice from the water and the hole the ice occupied in the water stayed there, it would require that piece of ice's mass in water to fill the hole again. That's why once the ice melts the level doesn't change.
Click to expand...
I agree about the ice over land thing.

I know weather is funky so it's impossible to say but couldnt at least some of the melted land ice stay as land water? If sea levels rise, that would also impact rivers that flow to it, there is less downhill to go. And it seems like it could also increase precipitation, so even if it all ends up in the ocean, it doesnt stay there.
Increased rainfall would be good with all the decreased aquifers. But that's where the funky weather comes into play, nothing says it will rain more in the right places.
 
#8,950
#8,950
UT_VOLS13 said:
@zeppelin128
Click to expand...
I've seen this same exact video in multiple places on Twitter, all with different interpretations. Some said it was staged like whoever this Tim dude is, some said he biked from DOT to WH Cabinet meeting (about 3 miles), some said he traveled by vehicle to the WH and then biked back to DOT. This is going to be one of those things people view through their politics.
The only thing I know for sure is that if it was a staged photo op, a shaky cell-phone video from behind some trees is not exactly a good one.

Edit: Pete re-tweeted the exact same video.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top